[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> > J. Daniel Ashton wrote:
>
> >> I'm sure these have come up before, but I ran into them again yesterday
> >> and wanted to make sure they're in someone's official "consider
> >> implementing" list.
>
> >> 1. an easy way to get a nicely engraved "rit." marking
> > How about ^\markup { \bold \italic rit. }
>
> Yes, I was trying something like that (see below) but my fundamental
> concern is this: I percieve the italic font to render as something
> different from the rit. and cresc. that I expect to see in beautifully
> engraved scores. Given the emphasis on beautiful engraving, are we
> satisfied to leave these very common markings to the font rendering
> system? Or do they deserve to have their own glyphs?
The CMR font family is not sufficient for our purposes. Someone should
sit down and design some new varieties that match engraved scores.
> >> For any of these that are already implemented, please feel free to
> >> instruct me and/or update the docs. I checked the 2.1.16 docs for all
> >> of these, as well as the tips page, and I also searched the history of
> >> this mailing list, with minimal satisfaction.
>
> These markings (rit, cresc, subito, piu, and others) are so common that
> I think they deserve their own entries in the unified index. No?
Yes!
Patch? (hint hint? :-)
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
