Of course. But I meant "it's impossible to interpret a mask that would be a
MetaFont glyph".
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>> [...] We need to think about a better approach of character boxes
>> in MetaFont. The ideal solution would be to create a mask for each
>> character. [...]
>
> Not necessarily - you can stash all sorts of information in font
> tables, which are then accessible via the otf_tables.
Exactly. T
On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:41 AM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> LGTM, but the result is really disturbing. We need to think about a
> better approach of character boxes in MetaFont. The ideal solution
> would be to create a mask for each character. For example, a mask for
> the "espressivo" gl
LGTM, but the result is really disturbing. We need to think about a
better approach of character boxes in MetaFont. The ideal solution
would be to create a mask for each character. For example, a mask for
the "espressivo" glyph would be a "fill" between its 6 dots.
I know it's impossible to in
On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:56 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc
> File lily/script-engraver.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc#newcode206
> lily/script-engraver.cc:206:
> Sc
http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc
File lily/script-engraver.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/diff/17001/lily/script-engraver.cc#newcode206
lily/script-engraver.cc:206:
Script_engraver::acknowledge_inline_accidental (Grob_info info)
Doesn't
On 2011/10/10 07:40:24, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
Yes'r. I think that this will be useful in the same way that
Skyline::print is
useful (I use them in tandem).
This is not meant as a criticism of you in this case, but as a general
observation: we have locked away too many parts of Lilypo
On Oct 10, 2011, at 9:26 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
> On 2011/10/10 07:15:35, MikeSol wrote:
>> The newest patchset adds a debug function to bug.cc.
>
> Not according to the uploaded patch sets.
>
>
Sorry, box.cc I meant.
>> I'd push it as a separate
>> commit - it has helped me a lot with this
On 2011/10/10 07:15:35, MikeSol wrote:
The newest patchset adds a debug function to bug.cc.
Not according to the uploaded patch sets.
I'd push it as a separate
commit - it has helped me a lot with this & other patches & I'd like
to keep it
in the code base.
Just make sure that it can rea
Hey all,
The newest patchset adds a debug function to bug.cc. I'd push it as a
separate commit - it has helped me a lot with this & other patches & I'd
like to keep it in the code base.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/5235052/
___
lilypond-
On Oct 9, 2011, at 9:29 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Message:
> Hey all,
>
> This patch fixes issue 1951 but causes other problems (check out
> accidental-suggestions.ly). Does anyone have any intuition as to where
> the cyclic dependencies are coming from (I don't see how Scr
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hey all,
This patch fixes issue 1951 but causes other problems (check out
accidental-suggestions.ly). Does anyone have any intuition as to where
the cyclic dependencies are coming from (I don't see how Scripts would
rely on AccidentalSuggestions and vice versa in this patc
12 matches
Mail list logo
