[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATCH: Arrowed accidentals for microtone notation

From: Maximilian Albert
Subject: Re: PATCH: Arrowed accidentals for microtone notation
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:39:26 +0200

Hi Werner,

first of all my apologies for having let you wait another week. I was on a 
maths conference first, then in the Netherland for a choir competition, and 
unexpectedly I didn't have internet access during any of both events. What's 
worse, my laptop just decided to stop working (don't know how severe a problem 
it is and how long it will take to fix) so I currently can't access my local 
repositories to test any further changes to my patches. :-(

> This looks very nice!


>   . With patch #6, you are widening the shape of a sharp if you either
>     attach an up arrow or two arrows, but you don't do that for a down
>     arrow only.  This is a bad idea IMHO.  You should widen the
>     charbox alone but not the shape.

Hmm, you are right. For whatever reason I visually inspected the wrong glyphs 
after applying the changes so I didn't notice the wider shapes. I thought that 
set_char_box only widened the charbox, not the shape, but apparently this is 
not so. How can I widen only the charbox without affecting the shape's width? 
Sorry if this is a dumb question but my last intensive metafont experience was 
a year ago. BTW, this problem may also be present in the other patches (e.g., 
from last time when my laptop worked I seem to remember that the sharp sign 
with up arrow looked wider than it should).

>   . For the natural with an arrow up, you also make the opposite,
>     non-arrowed end smaller.  This is a bug, I think, since you don't
>     do that for the natural with an arrow down.

This should be fixed in the attached corrected patch #4. Note again that due to 
the problems with my computer the patch is hand-edited and untested.

>   . The height and depth of all arrowed characters is a bit too
>     large.  Why?

What do you mean by "too large"? (I.e., with respect to what?) Are the heights 
of arrowed acidentals different from the regular ones?

> After adding your (corrected) patches #1 to #5, maybe Joe or Neil can
> play with it, finding out why there are collisions.  Note that the
> current skyline algorithm always handles glyphs as rectangles.  We
> don't have a finer resolution (yet).
> It would be good if you can provide ugly test cases.

OK, I will see to providing some when the work on the patches is done (and I 
have my laptop or at least another system up and running again).

Thanks very much for your review and comments,

P.S.: Initially, I had hoped that the patches would still be in time for 2.12. 
But now, with my laptop not working, I don't know if I'll be able to do the 
necessary corrections before feature freeze (even though for once I'd have 
enough time during the next few weeks). What is the envisaged time scale for 
2.12? And more importantly, would these accidentals have a chance of being 
approved for the new version?

GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und SpaƟ haben mit Pastry Passion!

Attachment: 0004-Add-arrowed-natural-signs.patch
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]