Han-Wen Nienhuys schrieb: > Regarding the accents, I'm a bit confused still. Why don't you simply > plug in the existing accent symbol by setting a couple of callbacks ?
Well, we were aiming for a kind of 'calligraphic' look. That is, if possible the lower 'leg' of the accent should be somewhat thicker than the upper one. So the existing function "draw_accent" would have to be adapted anyway. Also, it draws circular 'caps' for the vertices, which IMHO looks ugly when the lines of the accent are much thicker than in the glyphs for which the function is currently used (such as 'sforzato', 'espressivo', 'upbow', etc.) - example on request. I personally liked the approach taken in the 'marcato' glyph much better, where the ends of the legs are essentially flat, with slightly rounded corners. That's why I used that one as a template. Is this a problem? Should I have done it differently? Attached are two further examples I have prepared to attenuate the effect of 'smearing' Werner mentioned. In the first file the inner part of the accent is drawn slimmer, as suggested. But this makes the right part of the upper leg quite narrow. Whence the second file, where that part is a bit wider. Opinions? As far as I can tell this takes away much of the ugliness at the inner angle for the accents that sit *on* stafflines. But I'm not sure if the slight bending of the edge is too visible (especially on the lower leg) for the accents *between* stafflines. What do you think? Cheers, Max
accent1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
accent2.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
