Careful. Not everything scales logarithmically. See attached.
- Bruce-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kieren Richard MacMillan Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:04 AM To: Carrick Patterson Cc: User's List LilyPond Subject: Re: Fingering Type Size Hi, Carrick: > Well, that worked just great. Thanks a lot. My pleasure! > I never would have guessed how the size increment divisions worked > without your help, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. It is counter-intuitive if you think of them literally as "divisions" -- in that case, it would be intuitive that 0 is zero (invisible), 1 (= 100%) is "full-size", and numbers in between are smaller than normal but bigger than invisible (e.g., 0.5 = 50% of normal size). However, if you think of 1 as "full-size" and each number, positive or negative, as ONE STEP AWAY FROM NORMAL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SIGN (+1 = one step bigger, -1 = one step smaller), then this system suddenly "becomes intuitive". ;-) Best wishes, Kieren. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
AAAltStripped.ly
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
