[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Issue #3947] fixing \huge et al.
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: [Issue #3947] fixing \huge et al. |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:01:36 -0400 |
Hi Carl,
Thanks for the helpful response.
> The spacing appears pretty good to me.
Excellent.
> Seems like an abstracted function with two parameters (magstep and
> baselineskip) would be about right. Of course, if you can determine
> baselineskip from magstep, you would only need one parameter.
I'm optimistic I can.
> You have not yet tested your baseline-skip parameter
> with a different default-staff-size.
No indeed. Thanks for the tip!
> I don't know that it's possible to use a scale parameter for baseline-skip.
Hmmm… Well, since it seems that [roughly]
staff-size #20 @ font size #0 => baseline-skip 3
I would hope I'd be able to work out some formula.
> Is there any place else in the codebase where we include lilypond examples
> in the doc strings? It seems like we ought to try for consistency; either
> use lilypond examples in all of the doc strings (maybe at least for markup
> functions) or in none of them. I don't know the right answer; I'm just
> raising the question.
It's a good question. I simply copied this code from
define-markup-commands.scm. On quick glance, it appears that most of those
functions have Lilypond examples in their doc string(s). In any case, I'll
leave it as a different question, to be handled separately from the improvement
of \huge et al.
> Looks like a great start.
Thanks,
Kieren.
________________________________
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden