Just thinking...
Here's a rough path drawing that could do the job:
\version "2.19.19"
\markup {
\combine
\with-color #magenta
\path #0.3 #'(
(moveto 1.17 -0.50)
(curveto 1.24 -0.53 1.33 -0.43 1.24 -0.36)
(curveto 0.76 -0.07 0.82 0.57 1.49 0.62)
(curveto 2.50 0.60 2.54 -0.65 1.77 -0.84)
(curveto 0.89 -1.02 0.50 -0.54 0.35 -0.20)
(curveto 0.26 0.00 0.07 0.63 1.18 1.77)
(curveto 2.04 2.70 2.19 3.28 1.81 4.20)
(curveto 1.63 4.62 1.52 4.71 1.49 4.76)
(curveto 1.47 4.79 1.43 4.79 1.40 4.76)
(curveto 1.09 4.51 0.84 4.15 0.82 3.70)
(curveto 0.80 3.00 0.88 2.70 1.03 2.15)
(curveto 1.35 1.00 1.48 0.51 1.69 -0.90)
(curveto 1.93 -2.80 0.68 -2.44 0.57 -2.09)
(curveto 1.30 -2.34 1.25 -1.07 0.49 -1.39)
(curveto 0.32 -1.48 0.23 -1.61 0.28 -1.90)
(curveto 0.39 -2.72 2.12 -3.04 1.85 -0.95)
(curveto 1.62 0.70 1.52 0.90 1.21 2.10)
(curveto 0.75 3.46 1.14 3.90 1.64 4.20)
(curveto 1.86 3.49 1.70 3.05 1.10 2.31)
(curveto 0.08 1.24 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.45)
(curveto 0.00 -0.51 0.73 -1.20 1.72 -1.00)
(curveto 2.98 -0.72 2.80 1.15 1.45 1.04)
(curveto 0.50 0.95 0.52 -0.25 1.17 -0.50)
)
\translate #'(0.015 . 0)
\musicglyph #"clefs.G"
}
Note: X translation is 0.5 * 'line thickness'
The "only" problem is to find a way to get all glyphs coordinates
automagically ...
Cheers,
Pierre
2015-04-29 12:04 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Kieren, Hi Carl,
>
> I don't think that a standard scaling will help in this case.
> Here's an illustration of what could happened :
>
> \markup {
> \combine
> \with-color #magenta
> \scale #'(1.2 . 1.2)
> \musicglyph #"clefs.G"
> \musicglyph #"clefs.G"
> }
>
> Whatever glyph re-centering, you'll never get a proper whiteout.
> One has to define a specific scaling function that can "blows" the glyph
> in order to get a bold one.
>
> Cheers,
> Pierre
>
>
>
> 2015-04-29 2:26 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>
> :
>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> >> 1. follow exactly the grob/glyph outline (i.e., not just a
>> rectangle/box,
>> >> as currently implemented);
>> >> 2. include a parameter to set the thickness of the outline; and
>> >> 3. include a parameter to determine whether the whiteout was filled
>> >> throughout, or allowed ³holes² inside (as per the grob/glyph outline).
>> >
>> > I think that doing all 3 things is virtually impossible, given my
>> > understanding of the current state of stencil handling.
>>
>> Okay. Thanks for the information.
>>
>> > I think that a stencil whiteout for simple stencils could be created by
>> > combining two stencils:
>> > 1) the original stencil
>> > 2) a scaled version of the original stencil, colored white, and placed
>> on
>> > a lower layer
>> > The amount of scaling would determine the thickness of the outline.
>> > There would be no way of dealing properly with holes.
>>
>> That might be sufficient for the vast majority of cases I’ve seen.
>> I’ll see if I can work out a quick Scheme function to accomplish what
>> you’ve suggested here.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kieren.
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Kieren MacMillan, composer
>> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
>> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
