On Oct 29, 2014, at 13:01 , Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote: > > On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:02, Trevor Daniels <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Dan Eble wrote Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:34 AM >> >>> time-signature.cc <http://time-signature.cc/> has a comment at the top >>> saying, “This file should go; the formatting can completely be done with >>> markups.” Can anyone point me to a good example of that, or is it a unique >>> idea? >> >> Well, that comment was placed in the file by Han-Wen in Sep 2003, so doing >> it doesn't seem excessively urgent. > > One cannot have separate markups on clef, key and time signatures, because > they end up at the same markup event time. So perhaps that calls for the > opposite of the above mentioned file.
Please bear with my shallow knowledge of Lilypond. I’m not sure what action you suggest. Maybe because the comment is so old, there is a looser interpretation that is still a good idea, like “this should be done in Scheme." For example, I see that in define-grobs.scm, BarLine’s stencil property is defaulted to ly:bar-line::print, which is defined in bar-line.scm. On the other hand, ly:time-signature::print is defined in C++. Would I go wrong trying to following BarLine? Thanks, — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
