On 2019-01-21 1:23 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes:
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> }
That seems like such a useful pattern. Why is it only mentioned once
and buried away in extending.pdf? Also, there is no use of it in the
entirety of the LSR. Even searching the mailing list turns up a grand
total of nine threads where it is ever mentioned. (Well, I guess it
will be ten threads now, since this thread is still new enough to not be
indexed yet.)
Not trying to complain, though. I have often wondered how to modify a
property in situ without relying on the constraints of \offset; and I
definitely going to make use of grob-transformer now.
-- Aaron Hill
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
