Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Abraham Lee]

Hi, Torsten!

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Torsten Hämmerle <address@hidden> wrote:

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).

The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding
box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins".

Thanks for adding this! I don't see why LilyPond shouldn't have it if there might be someone who will expect it to be there. This is great! I agree that it should be #x and not x#.

Can I make a request while you're in the mode? Can we please, please, PLEASE, make the double flat look correct? It has always looked so odd to me to have the left flat be condensed while the other is normal width. I know it will mean the glyph will get a little bit wider, but it just looks so wrong to me. In all of printed literature that I've seen they are always full-width flats, even when overlapping. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way. The condensed look is way more obvious in the triple flat and so my request there would be the same (i.e., all flats the original width instead of only the right-most one and the others condensed).

Thanks again,

Abraham