Re: Allow scripts to be defined either as glyphs or stencils. (issue 348120043 by address@hidden)

[v . villenave]

On 2019/02/23 22:40:44, dak wrote:
> Sure, but you are trying to override stencils, aren't you?  Why do you
> even place an entry for "script-stencil" then instead of just placing
an
> entry for "stencil"?

Oh.  I’ve been an idiot from the start: it simply never occurred to me
that the script-alist definitions could include a straightforward
stencil property (I thought script-stencil would take precedence).

So the problem becomes a lot simpler now; users that want a new or
modified articulation script (which there have been quite a few of over
the years) may just do something like that:
http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=1087
and be done with it.

I’m still bothered by the way script-interface.cc is written,
specifically the hardcoded "feta" reference which I tried to address; do
you have any thoughts on that? (Other than that, it appears there’s very
little to salvage from my patch :-)

V.

https://codereview.appspot.com/348120043/