On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 20:03 -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 07:02:39AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > Another improvement would be to provide `shaped metrics': Currently, > > the metrics for a glyph consist of a single rectangle. This could be > > extended to a list of rectangles which are then merged. For the longa > > glyph, this could be these two boxes: > > > > > > +-----+ ++ ++----+ > > | | || || | > > +-----+ + || = ++----+ > > || || > > || || > > || || > > || || > > || || > > ++ ++ > > > > > > Doing so would allow much enhanced precision in collision handling. > > This is quite interesting. > > But would this help with collision handling? I was under the > impression that the Stencil extents (which form a box) are used for > collision handling (skylines, etc.). > > Or is the glyph metrics information used instead of the Stencil > extents?
The glyph metrics are used to compute the stencil extents. There is no particular reason, though, that we have to use a single box. Have a look at calc_skyline_spacing in axis-group-interface.cc. It uses boxes for most grobs, but more complicated outlines for others (ie. axis-groups). It could certainly be modified to use more complicated outlines for grobs that supported it. FWIW, I used to think that this would be a very important feature; now I'm not so sure. There are certainly a few cases (eg. slurs, hairpins, treble clefs) where having more accurate outlines would help. But the list is fairly short: for most glyphs, a more accurate box wouldn't matter much. Joe _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel