[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Three questions for ancient.itely

From: Eyolf Østrem
Subject: Three questions for ancient.itely
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:55:49 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17-muttng (2007-11-01)

I'm working on the docs for ancient music, and I've come across a number of
things that relate not primarily to the documentation, but to the program

1. Is there a good reason why it takes the monstruous
\override Staff.Accidental #'glyph-name-alist = 
to change the Accidental style of a piece, in contrast to the
simple syntax for time signature and clef styles? Heck, even the flag style
can be changed with a simple setting...
IIRC, it used to be much simpler -- why this change? Any chance of a \set

2. One of the "known issues" under flags states:

        The attachment of ancient flags to stems is slightly off due to a
        change in early 2.3.x.

About time to fix that, is it...?

3. The form "Episem" is used, both as a lilypond command and in the
documentation text. Since it's not really a medieval concept at all, but a
term invented by the Solesmes monks when plainchant was revised/-vived in
the late nineteenth century, it is not an established term in any language
other than french, where it is episeme (and it doesn't appear neither in
Merriam-Webster nor in the full OED). If anything, Episem is the german
form.  I would strongly recommend going with the latinized greek "episema",
which is what the Vatican editions have. 

This may be too small a matter to merit a change in the lilypond code, but
I intend to change to episema in the documentation text, unless there are
strong objections to it.


Mate, this parrot wouldn't VOOM if you put four million volts through it!
                -- Monty Python

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]