[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:53:43 +0100 |
On 5 nov. 2012, at 09:45, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> "address@hidden" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> Do the different rest glyphs actually have different height? Would it
>>> be possible to stipulate that they are not supposed to, and just let the
>>> code for rest height in general return the height of the standard rest
>>> glyph without bothering to check the on-staffiness?
>>
>> I wanna say that they do (it'd be a difference of half a ledger line)
>> but I could be wrong. I know nothing about metafont - someone more
>> competent than I would have to check.
>
> Well, there is the problem that staff lines may be reconfigured in
> thickness, but "apart from that (TM)", it would seem to me like counting
> the half ledger line into the glyph height for the glyph intended to be
> used on a staff line would not seem to cause problems, would it? Or
> would it shift material around that is designed to align to staff lines
> and thus is not supposed to check for collisions with them for the sake
> of placement?
>
The easiest way to test this out is to get a baseline and then edit line 249 of
rest.cc so that instead of:
SCM m = brew_internal_stencil (me, a != X_AXIS);
it reads
SCM m = brew_internal_stencil (me, false);
and then run make check.
You'll see right away how (if at all) this changes things.
Cheers,
MS
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, (continued)
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, Keith OHara, 2012/11/04
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, David Kastrup, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, David Kastrup, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, David Kastrup, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, David Kastrup, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision,
address@hidden <=
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, Werner LEMBERG, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, Werner LEMBERG, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, Keith OHara, 2012/11/05
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/06
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, Keith OHara, 2012/11/07
- Re: Design flaw in Rest_collision, address@hidden, 2012/11/07