----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net>
Cc: "Devel" <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Black mensural notehead bug
"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
To: "Phil Holmes" <em...@philholmes.net>
Cc: "Devel" <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Black mensural notehead bug
"Phil Holmes" <em...@philholmes.net> writes:
This looks wrong to me:
\relative c'' {
\override NoteHead.style = #'mensural
\cadenzaOn
s1 a \longa a \breve a1 \bar "|"
\override NoteHead.style = #'blackmensural
s1 a \longa a \breve a1 \bar "|"
}
There is no blackmensural style as such as far as I can see. Do you
mean blackpetrucci?
There are glyphs - for example noteheads.sM1blackmensural so I guessed
the style.
Guessing is your privilege, but as long as you don't guess something
supported by the manuals, I don't see anything that can be called a bug.
The manuals for ancient notation continue to have some defects...
It seems to me you shouldn't need to select a petrucci style to get
these glyphs?
Petrucci uses mensural noteheads scaled to a different size. So it's
not that surprising that Blackpetrucci uses blackmensural noteheads.
So we have any other style using _those_ noteheads?
Well, I don't know without further digging. However, there is a notation
style called black mensural, and it seems only logical that Lilypond should
support this using the available glyphs.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
