Re: blot_diameter

[Rune Zedeler]

Citat Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:

> No, 3 is not a problem. Heights are read from the AFM file, not from
> the TFM.

Eh, well, okay. I don't really understand all this strange mf-related files... 
Perhaps I should just read the mf-book from start to finish... :-)

> Indeed, but this scheme could also be used for the one-font-per-style
> approach.

Well, eh, no, unless you would like the classical font to contain only one 
glyph, you would make two special fonts for semi-breve and breve rests (each 
font containing only 2 glyphs), etc, etc.
Bottom line is: The name extensions on the glyphs is NOT the same as styles 
because each style is a mix from different glyphs.

> I like the one-font-per-style approach better, since it
> matches better with how other currently available fonts do it.

Okay, point taken, but I cannot see how it could be combined with the list 
thing - unless all the fonts are incomplete as described above, and THEN it 
starts getting real messy and NOT being like how other fonts do it.
Lots of fonts with identical glyphs IMHO also seems messy.

> BTW we
> already have a font-series / font-shape field that could be used for
> this list-thing.

But the rests currently don't contain the fonts-interface...?

[feta19]
> It has always been there, probably because  musixtex  also had it.

Ehm, but is it possible to use it from within lilypond?
 

-Rune