Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes: > This variation works: > > %%%% > \version "2.19.82" > { \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left) > \override Fingering.stencil = #(lambda (grob) > (ly:make-stencil '() '(0 . 0) '(0 . 0)))
That's just #point-stencil . > <g'-2 c''-4> } > %%%% > > Here we have a valid, albeit empty, stencil. This bypasses the > programming error. > > ---- > > Ignoring the programming error, there is another issue with how \omit > * behaves. Consider the following: > > %%%% > \version "2.19.82" > > circledFingerStil = #(lambda (grob) > (circle-stencil (ly:text-interface::print grob) 0.1 0.1)) > cFS = \tweak stencil \circledFingerStil \etc > > { \omit Fingering > <g'-2 c''-\cFS-4> } > %%%% > > Using \omit Fingering is supposed to eliminate Fingering grobs until > it is \undone. The problem is that \tweak also modifies the stencil, > cancelling out the effect of the \omit. I fail to see the problem. You specify a specific stencil explicitly not referring to the original definition and get it. If that's not what you want, you could most certainly have written something like \version "2.19.82" circledFingerStil = #(grob-transformer 'stencil (lambda (grob old) (and (ly:stencil? old) (circle-stencil old 0.1 0.1)))) cFS = \tweak stencil \circledFingerStil \etc { \omit Fingering <g'-2 c''-\cFS-4> } -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user