Re: lilypond/input/test add-staccato.ly ancient-tim...

[Juergen Reuter]

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Graham Percival wrote:

> Index: lilypond/input/test/ancient-time.ly
> diff -c lilypond/input/test/ancient-time.ly:1.6 
> lilypond/input/test/ancient-time.ly:1.7
> *** lilypond/input/test/ancient-time.ly:1.6   Sun May 18 09:06:02 2003
> --- lilypond/input/test/ancient-time.ly       Tue May 27 09:19:42 2003
> ***************
> *** 1,4 ****
> --- 1,5 ----
>   \version "1.7.18"
> + % TODO: merge with ancient font?
>   \header {
>   texidoc="Should use old style."
>   }

No, rather the opposite: ancient font was a very initial effort to
demonstrate ancient notation features (mainly how to apply the glyphs of
the ancient font) and is about getting obsoleted.

The problem is that, in the meantime, support for ancient notation has
grown and ancient-font.ly only covers some aspects of it.  Therefore, on
the long term, it should be replaced by appropriate test files (or rather
tricks files, as you suggest) that cover ancient notation in separate
files for different notation aspects.  ancient-time.ly could be an example
for such a file, although currently it looks to me as something that
rather belongs to input/regression (it tests if the style property of grob
TimeSignature works for glyphs from the ancient font); but that should be
decided by Han-Wen/Jan.

However, I am not sure if it would not be better to do the separation
according to notation styles (mensural, neo_mensural, vaticana, medicaea,
hufnagel, ...) rather than according to notation features (time
signatures, note heads, rests, accidentals, clefs, custodes, ...).

Greetings,
Juergen