>> Ah, ok. On the other hand, having the possibility to say
>>
>> \override NoteHead.hollow = ##t
>>
>> to always enforce hollow noteheads makes probably sense, too.
>
> I'm still not quite sure what you would expect the semantics to be.
I'm poking with a stick in the dark :-) In this very case I'm playing
the advocatus diaboli. I don't know enough details w.r.t. Gregorian
notation, so I simply comment on things that I find strange or hard to
grasp.
> If we keep it as a numeric property, but call it "hollow" rather
> than something involving "black", we'll first of all have to
> redefine it: not "duration beyond which notes are black", but
> "duration up to which notes are white".
Sound sensible.
> "hollow=1" would then be the default for modern notation.
Yes.
> If you want support for boolean values too, "hollow=#t" might
> naturally mean "hollow for all values throughout".
Yes.
> But what would "hollow=#f" be? No hollow notes at all, i.e. fully
> black notation?
Yes. This might not make sense at all, but it would fit into the
system.
> Or just the default, i.e. the same as "hollow=1"?
Rather no.
BTW, my main reason for favouring `hollow' is that it is a visual
term. I can imagine that a different, non-Gregorian notation could
also benefit from hollow notes.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
