> The first one is a stab at a new caesura glyph that has continuously
> been requested on this list, according to the archives.
Is there any reason why you are replacing the old glyph shape instead
of adding a new one?
> The only problem seemed to be that the corners didn't look very
> symmetrical (which by the way is also the case with the existing
> "noteheads.s[012]slash" glyphs).
Regarding `noteheads.s[012]slash', this is not true. If you use
mf2pt1 to generate the feta fonts you can see that. I rather suspect
an artifact of the current glyph generation with mftrace.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
