Hi, 2013/4/6 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes: >> I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter >> implies some shift relative to the clef's default position. > > I think I'd like ClefModifier. Something like > > `clefOctavation' (integer) > Add this much extra octavation. Values of 7 and -7 are > common. > > does not make sense. Transposition is not really accurate since the > number is in steps rather than diatonic. It is a bit disconcerting that > values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.
ClefModifier sounds nice. So, do you think that the grob should be named ClefModifier and the context property clefModifier (clefModification maybe?), or would it be better to have ClefModifier and clefTransposition? Or yet another combination, like ClefModifier and clefModifierAmount? > I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting > after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset". Well, i would avoid "shift" because it can be confused with the situation when the clef is actually placed on a different vertical position (\clef treble vs. \clef french). best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
