Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org> writes: > Quoting David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> Small wonder. I thought our default use of symbols matched our naming >> rules, but that one's an exception. >> >> We can make an exception for convert-ly here, but that's not a >> satisfactorily final solution. >> >> I propose renaming it. Suggestions? > > I'm fine with renaming. We have Staff.middleCPosition. Perhaps the > same name could be used in KeySignature. > > On the other hand, we don't care where the _middle_ C is positioned. > We only need to know where _some_ C is positioned to decide how to > print the key signature. Then "middle" could be dropped. > > By the way, setting KeySignature.c0-position with \override doesn't > work. I had to resort to setting it in Scheme:
Given the analysis in a longer mail, I revert my opinion that we need to do something here. c0-position for the relevant grobs _can't_ be set by overrides or tweaks. Renaming it to middleCPosition would likely cause more confusion. What _is_ wrong is that the Internals Reference calls it a user property: as far as I can see, it is for internal use only. The question is where this distinction is established. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
