On 2018/04/24 21:49:37, Carl wrote:
On 2018/04/24 18:43:45, Be-3 wrote:

> The intervals are just *approximating* the outlines of a run-of-the
mill
> natural glyph. I even played around with the concept using squared
paper.
> This approach more or less relies on the fact that the
square/parallelogram
> part of a natural glyph will be one stave-space high independent of
the font
> used, just like a notehead in *any* font will be one stave-space
high.

So it's a reasonable approximation that the box part of the natural
will extend
about 3/4 staff spaces above the staff position of the natural, and
the
descender
will  descend about 1.5 staff spaces below.

Seems like a reasonable estimate to me, even if it's not exact for a
particular
font.
You can't get too far away from that and still fit in a staff.

Thanks,

Carl

Agreed, Carl,

And, IMHO, there is no need for exaggerated exactness: as soon as two
corners get too close (no matter how close exactly), we need a wee bit
of extra padding.
The main reason for the 3/4 staff spaces, to be honest, was that the two

intervals will be just touching (with intersection length 0) for the
corner-to-corner constellation.

All the best,
Torsten

https://codereview.appspot.com/343020043/

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to