2013/4/7 Ian Hulin <i...@hulin.org.uk>: > >> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to >> ClefModifier because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to >> me). ClefModifier could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of >> the symbol. > > 1+ > The only numbers that make sense above or below clefs are ones > referring to a whole number of octaves (8, 15 etc.)
I don't agree. Personally, i think that transposing instruments could use the non-octave modifiers to make their transposition clearer. Anyway, since we allow non-octave modifications, it's better to reflect that in the naming. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
