[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: blot_diameter
From: |
Rune Zedeler |
Subject: |
Re: blot_diameter |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:38:16 +0100 (MET) |
User-agent: |
IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6 |
Citat Juergen Reuter <address@hidden>:
> According to the recent discussion about blot_diameter, I tried to fix
> all font symbols that I contributed so far. Still, I do not fully
> understand the concept. Does blot_diameter only apply to convex
> edges?
Yes, I guess so.
The problem is that Han-Wen in a previous mail (back in december) wrote
* preferably no sharp inside angles.
but on the other hand he also wrote
* Have no clotting.
Theese two are in direct contradiction as visual clotting reduction is made by
SHARPENING the inside angles. I guess that the first claim was a misthought
from Han-Wen.
> Does it only apply to the outline of a symbol?
No.
> Does the
> concept of blot_diameter imply that lines always must have a width of
> at least blot_diameter? What about penrazors, penstrokes and all the
> other MetaFont constructs that typically produce sharp edges?
Don't use them.
I think that my soft_penstroke macro produces fairly nice results - so I think
that you could just use that instead.
> The attached patch is relative to my previous patch.
Hopefully this does not contradict with my feta-patch.
Is there a reason why you didn't apply that before doing your own changes?
-Rune