Hi Malte,
Am 27.04.19 um 10:49 schrieb Malte Meyn:
Am 26.04.19 um 14:45 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser:
I might also be willing to use LaTeX for the creation of the symbols
because I could then combine efforts for a standalone LaTeX package
to produce the symbols in continuous text too.
I'd very much argue for a LilyPond-only solution in order to rely as
little as possible on a specific toolchain.
As said before
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2019-04/msg00344.html)
I already made a LilyPond-only solution that I abandoned because it
wasn’t easy to include in LaTeX, see attachment.
That looks really great, and it's a pity you abandoned it. But I can of
course understand your rationale. However, as impressive as your
font-based approach is, I would really prefer having a package that does
it "live", i.e. does the combination of sub-symbols while engraving or
typesetting. That will provide much more flexibility on the long run, as
it is possible to create new or custom functionality without having to
modify a rather "opaque" object like a font. And I will definitely want
to have the symbols in arbitrary fonts. Now, having the experience
through lyluatex that my music examples automatically have the same text
fonts as the surrounding text document, I would never again accept music
examples with LilyPond's default text fonts in my documents, and I'm
sure this will go for analysis symbols as well (or, if I want them to be
in a different font, I'd probably want to *choose* that font freely).
Although I know that keeping two projects in parallel is a serious
maintenance issue I think the best path forward (at least from my
perspective and not at all ruling out a font-based approach in parallel)
is creating a LilyPond-based solution, make that as generic as possible
and then think about a way for LaTeX. What would definitely work is
basically rebuilding that LilyPond solution (with a matching user
interface) as an independent LaTeX package. Maybe it would even be
possible to use lyluatex (and its option to integrate LilyPond snippets
directly in the continuous text) to have LilyPond engrave the symbols
on-the-fly and essentially find a way to *integrate* the LilyPond
solution in LaTeX that way. (This is also why I basically decided not to
do any further work on my lilyglyphs package, since lyluatex essentially
can to the same and much more, with the only downside of requiring
LilyPond (and *lua*tex) to be available.) Such an approach would either
be a standalone package or an addition to lyluatex where a special
command would wrap the \lilypond{} command to generate a custom file
around the given commands to generate a single analysis symbol or a
sequence thereof. Actually I think that should be rather simple (with
the single drawback that it would be LuaLaTeX-only solution).
Best
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
