> > One thing I forgot to mention: I've also rewritten dot handling within > > ligatures. The old code > > - didn't avoid staff lines > > - didn't conform actual usage: dotting notes above is not a practice, > > only if they are first within a flexa, see examples in > > http://anaigeon.free.fr/mes_facs/fsbarb.jpg > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Eton_Choirbook.jpg
> > (actually I know one example when the second flexa note is dotted above, > > but general usage is like the two above, when such notes are dotted > > behind.) > > http://codereview.appspot.com/3797046/ > According to Apel (1962: 99), the general rule would seem to be that the dot > should be on the right if it applies to the final note of the whole > ligature, but on top if it is anywhere else (flexa or no flexa). He has one > example of a flexa followed by several square notes, with a dot above the > following square note (i.e. in a position that happens to be also just to > the right of the flexa), but the dot is meant to apply to the square note > over which it stands, not the flexa. When I have time to go to the library, I'll look up Apel again, which codex it is, but if you have a handy scan available (even better: a link, e.g. to IMSLP or DIAMM), I'd love to see it. But let me reiterate: I've seen several codices, and only one diverges from the usage I implemented, and even that diverges only in dotting not only the first but the last note of a flexa above as well. I know that ligatures are not too frequent, dotted notes within ligatures are extremely rare, but even the two examples I linked clearly dot notes contrary to the Apel way. I'll try to find an example where a non-final square note is dotted and the following note is below it (in the linked examples the next notes are above, so the dot of the first note appears _below_ the next note). p _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel