[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: varC clefs in 2.19

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: varC clefs in 2.19
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:48:23 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

Am 01.06.2014 08:54, schrieb James:
On 31/05/14 22:44, address@hidden wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "James" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Cc: "lilypond-devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:16:53 PM
Subject: Re: varC clefs in 2.19

On 30/05/14 14:12, address@hidden wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "James" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden, "lilypond-devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:26:56 AM
Subject: Re: varC clefs in 2.19

On 30/05/14 10:24, James wrote:
On 29/05/14 23:11, address@hidden wrote:
I was just looking over the "changes" page for the current
development version (2.19.x) and the section with the new clef glyphs
caught my eye.  The example given for; \clef "varC" *seems* to be
alto clef only.
Yes that seems right from the file changes.;a=commit;h=476c0adbf748f1adcb6927a6197d13f3790c8a9b

scm/parser-clef.scm is the file that (I think) determines the position.

This clef in any position is a 'C' clef as it marks middle C.  I'm
sure it must be possible to redefine the clef's position somehow, but
this strikes me as an oversight, especially with all the other clef
transpositions which are readily available.
Seems to be a documentation oversight actually if you look at the diff
for the file parser-clef.scm there _is_ a tenor version.

I'm not a programmer, but I seem to remember trying to document these
other clefs in that are in this file more coherently in, say, the
appendix. I just never got fully around to it.

However can you see if this 'tenor' version is what you wanted?

Sorry for replying to my own post. I forget sometimes that not everyone
necessarily reads the code or cares about looking in the code tree in

Assuming you can understand these files I am referring to then it should
be obvious, but just in case (and so I apologize if I am patronizing
you) you should be able to use

\clef "tenorvarC"


I must confess that I've not been using 2.19.  My comments were based
on my encounter with the "changes" page.  If \clef "tenorvarC" puts
that 'varC' clef in the tenor position then my question is answered.
Well let us know :)

Then we know it really does work as expected.


I downloaded/installed 2.19.7-1 on a machine and can confirm that:

\clef tenorvarC


\clef altovarC per your description above.  I also tried...

\clef mezzosopranovarC


\clef sopranovarC

...which did not produce output but rather gave me a verbose error
message listing all the recognized clef names.  Is this an oversight
or was a decision made not to make the 'varC' glyph available for all
the same positions as the default 'C' clef?

Well that is a question for those more experienced than I that know
about things such as if this clef is appropriate for mezzo and sop
ranges. I would have assumed that the person that checked in the change
would have known, so can only assume that this is an oversight or there
is some convention (musically) that means that these voice types would
not be in this clef for some reason or other.

I am responsible for the added glyph, but I do not use this clef variant at all, so I don't know which combinations are useful/needed.


Ian proposed the additional variant, which I implemented 1:1 according
to his ideas. I'll cc him, I think he knows more about this type of
clefs than me.

Adding additional var-clef names would be straightforward.


I'll defer to the list.


lilypond-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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