Re: fetaBraces

[Jean Abou Samra]

> Le 15 mars 2023 à 10:13, Luca Fascione <l.fascione@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> I'm thinking we want both, Jean, because they are useful for different 
> scenarios.
> 
> But I think it does have merit,


I realize that “I’m not sure it’s worth the trouble” was bad wording on my 
part. It *would* be a useful feature, but I’m not *personally* willing to 
invest effort into it at the current point of time. My goal is just to 
rationalize the existing system.


> because if one like their sheets (or a group of sheets) set up one way, with 
> my method they'd need to change one file in one place and they'd have their 
> score adopt that look, whereas if the score is full of commands to switch 
> fonts this or that way, that'd be much more work to do.
> Random example: if I take a couple of fonts and meld them for a new "jazz" 
> look, I can just test them on leadsheets I have by preparing a virtual font 
> and changing one line on any score I have lying around, right?
> Including sending it to my friend and having her test it on her material.
> If the font mix was achieved with several commands injected in a whole lot of 
> places, that would not be anywhere near as feasible.


You don’t necessarily have to inject commands in lots of places, you can put 
all your overrides in a \layout block. If you want to change clefs for example, 
you just have to override the Clef grob. Some glyphs are printed by several 
grobs (e.g., Accidental and TrillPitchAccidental) but usually not many, so it’s 
quite feasible. What it doesn’t work for is mostly markup commands like 
\musicglyph, \accidental and \left-brace.