Hi Urs, Many thanks for having a look.
Urs Liska-3 wrote > I don't like the combination of sharp plus doublesharp - but if that's > the way it seems to be done, then we shouldn't invent something new. I'm not too happy about it either, that's one of the reasons I'm asking here. The only "allowed" variation would be the tiny gap between the # and the x... (or swapping to x# instead of #x, but that doesn't seem to be the current "standard", if one can speak of a standard at all). Urs Liska-3 wrote > Could you please resend the example image without the circles? I'd like > to get an impression of the actual looks on the page. Yes, of course! I'll attach the whole page I'm currently testing with as a PDF file, then you can have a thorough look at any desired magnification. test-issue3356.pdf <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/test-issue3356.pdf> There is (among others) a third example containing a rather unfortunate #x that takes a lot of horizontal space as the # can't be squeezed below the dot (it's too high). The glyphs are built using existing character drawing routines and bouding box widths exactly match the original character's left and right "margins". Thanks again Torsten -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
