Am So., 23. Feb. 2020 um 16:26 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
<lilyp...@hillvisions.com>:
>
> On 2020-02-23 4:47 am, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > consider the following code
> >
> > \version "2.19.84"
> > \markup \dynamic { s f m z p r }
> >
> > output attached.
> >
> > And compare with the output of
> >
> > \version "2.19.84"
> > { R1 }
> > \markup \dynamic { s f m z p r }
> >
> > The markup does not use the same font (from visual inspection). Most
> > noticeable with "z", but the others are slightly off as well.
>
> I cannot reproduce against 2.19.84 I installed from the linux-64 sh
> script. (lilybin.com running 2.19.55 also behaves as expected.) The
> dynamics font looks the same regardless of the presence of a score.
>
> Could this be an issue with font caching?
How to verify it's font caching?
Can you confirm different bounding-boxes (the seciónd here reported issue)?
Thanks,
Harm
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
