[Top][All Lists]

[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.


> 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.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website:
‣ email: address@hidden

reply via email to

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