On 26 Sep 2009, at 11:01, Graham Breed wrote:
Isn't the lookup dynamic, so one only gets a warning when it
actually needs a glyph for an alteration? - But it is a good idea
to define a glyph for each alteration.
Yes, but we've overridden the glyph lookup to use strings from
external fonts. There's no need to define glyphs at all except to
suppress this warning. It's there because some redundant code is
still being executed. If we knew the right plumbing we wouldn't
need them at all, and should be able to leave the X- and Y-extents
implicit. But this is the current state of the art.
Thanks for the explanation. I recall that: LilyPond has more than one
glyph-finding model. That was a problem with the key signatures, I
think, which could not use those from external fonts.
Hans
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
