Thank you both, Werner and Valentin, for taking the time to look at my
submission.
When I was playing around with drawing shapes, I was thinking paper
scale not text scale. This was inspired by Paolo's desire to draw
arbitrary arrows and things.
Because of that, I presumed the end user would desire absolute sizing.
Of course, as I continued playing with the markup command, I realized it
probably should work similar to the built-in \triangle command.
I love the idea of tying things to font-size, so the shapes are
automatically responsive to changes in the surrounding context. That
simplifies the usage of the command since you just need to specify point
count. This also makes it behave similar to the other built-in shape
functions.
Thankfully, it should be trivial to make the changes. The question now
is what reference glyph is the best? "A" is notably a letter in most
fonts that tries to make the apex more prominent. As a result, it could
make the polygons appear a little too big. "O" has a similar issue.
These glyphs are optically oversized, so they look good. Perhaps "H"
will work. I think it usually has a consistently flat top and bottom
without any optical adjustments. Mind you, I could just be overthinking
things. Nothing would stop me from sampling all uppercase letters and
averaging them.
Regardless, you both have given me plenty to think about.
-- Aaron Hill
