RE: font use

[James Lowe]

Hello,
________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Fr. Michael Gilmary, mma 
address@hidden
Sent: 25 April 2011 19:29
To: address@hidden
Subject: font use

Hi everyone:

I'm using Lilypond v. 2.13.37-1 and the question is:

what has changed in the use of fonts --- for lyrics especially? I mean in terms 
of the common ligatures: ff, fi, fl, etc. When I used v. 2.12 (I think, or 
2.11) they were generated without any problem. But now, they aren't rendered 
anymore. Is it now required to call them explicitly? This is probably related 
to the fact that the font also used to render using a different optical weight 
than it does now (I'm using Garamond PP with optical sizes).

Below is a sample snip of code that used to generate the fi ligature and a 
lighter weight. Any help is appreciated.




\score {
\relative {
\set autoBeaming = ##f


c8 d e4 f8 e4 d8 f e4 \bar "|"
 }
      \addlyrics{
  \override LyricText #'font-name = #"Garamond Premier Pro"
 \set fontSize = #1.2
A -- round me  the fire  will be quenched
}
}


\version "2.13.37"

-----

I'm sure that those who know better will give you more detail but over the last 
6 months there have been similar type questions about ligatures, looking back 
over these threads they are always led back to this thread

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00128.html

Ligatures it seems are not just joining an 'f' to an 'i' for example, but 
require that an actual glyph be available in that font for it to work. The 
'engine' that Lilypond uses (Pango) to lay out fonts has changed so this might 
be a cause, but the thread above explains other issues with the 'font spec' and 
how Lilypond uses it as well.

You can probably tell I don't really know the specifics that well :)

but I wonder if you are seeing a difference in Lilypond than a difference in 
the font you are using (i.e. the font you are using doesn't have a Ligature 
character).

I don't know if it would be useful to get a before (2.12) and after (2.13) of 
the ligature you say used to be shown.

James