Am 12.03.2018 um 17:07 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
Hi Urs,
Many thanks for having a look.
Urs Liska-3 wrote
I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's
the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new.
I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking
here.
The only "allowed" variation would be the tiny gap between the # and the
x...
(or swapping to x# instead of #x, but that doesn't seem to be the current
"standard", if one can speak of a standard at all).
Urs Liska-3 wrote
Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like
to get an impression of the actual looks on the page.
Yes, of course!
I'll attach the whole page I'm currently testing with as a PDF file, then
you can have a thorough look at any desired magnification.
test-issue3356.pdf
<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/test-issue3356.pdf>
There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x
that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the
dot (it's too high).
Why is that so? From the actual height on the page there shouldn't be an
issue having it below the dot. Is there a padding or an Y-extent that
disturbes?
The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".
I can't comment on the implementation, but IMHO it looks fine.
Best
Urs
Thanks again
Torsten
--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
_______________________________________________
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
