On Tuesday, 18 April 2000, "James Hammons" writes:
> I hate to keep bringing it up, but it never seems to be quite right... In
> particular, I'm referring to lily's output of accidentals on chord symbols
> (1.3.46.jbr1). The flat sign on a chord symbol looks OK, but the sharp sign
> now looks wrong (it's too high). What would be ideal is for both the sharp
> and flat signs to be the same size as the letter and sitting on the letter's
> baseline. Forgive me if I keep harping on this, but will things like
> superscript/subscript on chord symbol modifiers be user configurable (I
> personally think they should be)? How difficult would it be to add this
> functionality?
Currently, I've got this list of small changes that will be made,
when I get round to it:
* remove tonic (0 . 0) from chord-match list
* change the (modifier . additions) feature into something more free, eg
(list-of-text)
and allow super/subscripts, something like:
("m" "maj" ('super . "7"))
* have a mechanism to switch between different naming schemes, eg
simple, banter, american. (I'll assign a volunteer for the
american table :-)
Maybe, we'll have to add smaller versions of sharp and flat to the
feta font, or just make smaller fonts (10,9,8,7pt) too.
> Also, will a Cadd9 ever come up as a Cadd9 instead of a C9/no7?
That'll be partly your job, I hope.
I did change your example, and suggested this:
; c = 0, d = 1
;;(((0 . 0) (2 . 0) (4 . 0) (8 . 0)) . ("add9" . ""))
;(((0 . 0) (2 . 0) (4 . 0) (1 . 0)) . ("" . (("script" . "add9"))))
but left it commented-out for some reason.
Greetings,
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
