On 2018-11-17 8:50 am, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Here’s a screenshot from the actual score I’m trying to engrave, with
your function in place (minus the text duplication):
Notice that the triangles of each figure are as hoped/expected… but
the *actual baseline of the glyph* is not being honoured consistently
across the various numbers: where the numerals descend (e.g., 7 and
5), everything is shifted, including the caret’s [apparent] "padding".
Ah, but the 7 and 5 in that font in fact have descenders. The baseline
is not the same as the bottom extent of a glyph. For instance, round
letters (e.g. "O") will sit below the baseline slightly in order to
combat an optic illusion.
Mind you I could be mistaken, but I suspect that if you append an "x" to
each number, you'll see that the number descends. (An "x" typically
should sit on the baseline, although I have seen some brush/script fonts
where the glyph straddles.)
Does Lilypond not know where the baseline is exactly? That is, is
this graphic function you’ve created using properties of the glyph
that can’t be used automagically by Lilypond?
The baseline is always at Y coordinate zero (0) for any stencil. So I
am not measuring the font, but rather working on the assumption that
pango will align glyphs properly.
For reference, what is the font you are using?
-- Aaron Hill
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
