Hi,
First off, I am once again amazed at the incremental improvement in the
docs. For example: 5.3.4 "The \tweak command". I've been working this
morning on coloring one (and only one) accidental in a chord. It seemed
like
\tweak would be the way to do it. The \tweak command works, for example,
in
constructions like <c' \tweak #'color #red a'>4 to adjust the color of
individual noteheads within a chord. However, I ran into the problem that
\tweak decides which grob to apply to *lexically* (ie, by the bit of input
syntax immediately following) which works great for noteheads, slurs and
the
like but doesn't work for accidentals because accidentals get created
implicitly during interpretation.
So, after fiddling with \tweak for a while to color just one accidental in
a
chord, I'm pretty sure that \tweak won't work but I'm still not completely
sure. "Am I thinking of things correctly? Or is there something easier
that
I'm missing?" So I click over to 5.3.4 . Not only has the section been
expanded from the last time I read over it (probably more than a year ago)
and not only does it read great, there is now the following language on
explicit limitations of the command:
"Notably the \tweak command cannot be used to modify stems, beams or
accidentals, since these are generated later by note heads, rather than by
music elements in the input stream."
This is excellent. Not because I can't color a single accidental. But
instead because *the docs are explicit enough to stop me spending any
further time going down the wrong path*.
I know this seems like small point. But, to me, it is only the most
professional docs that list not only what something does do ... but also
what something *does not do*. (I'm reminded of "limitation of scope"
sections that appear in some of the best-written software specification
docs: all software requirements docs list pages and pages of what the
system
shall do, but it takes someone to go the extra mile to include writing
that
points out limitations about what the system need not do.) Of course
there's
something of a tradition of this in the docs in general because of the
'known limitations and bugs' sections, which are also quite useful.
So thank you to whoever edited 5.3.4. And thanks again to the entire GDP
team for the dramatic improvements in the docs generally over the last
months.
Now on to my original question.
* * *
QUESTION: is it possible to reach inside of a chord and color just one
accidental red?
\tweak isn't going to work, as is quite clear from the docs, and Trevor
(D)'s post to this thread earlier this year in April ...
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-04/msg00067.html
... makes me think that the task may not be possible at all.
Does anyone have a work-around?
Trevor.
--
Trevor Bača
address@hidden