Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM, James wrote:
> On 30 September 2012 13:27, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>> Well, in the current version of the NR, the guidance for changing the breath
>>> sign is:
>>> \override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
>>> #"scripts.caesura.straight"}
>>
>> Hmm. I wouldn't do it this way,
>
> How would you do it?
Like i described in my previous email - with a dedicated command:
straightBreathe = {
\override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
#"scripts.caesura.straight"}
\breathe
}
or have just the override inside the variable, like a style setting:
straightBreathe = {
\override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
#"scripts.caesura.straight"}
}
This way, if we ever change the name of the glyph or something like
that, we would just redefine this command and everything will /just
work/ - without convert-ly at all.
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Hello,
On 30 September 2012 13:27, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> Well, in the current version of the NR, the guidance for changing the breath
>> sign is:
>> \override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
>> #"scripts.caesura.straight"}
>
> Hmm. I wouldn't do it this way,
How would you do it?
James
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> Well, in the current version of the NR, the guidance for changing the breath
> sign is:
> \override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
> #"scripts.caesura.straight"}
Hmm. I wouldn't do it this way, it feels not Lilypondish to me (e.g.
a dedicated command is easier to maintain - you can redefine it if
necessary and there are no compatibility problems). But this is just
my opinion (may be worth discussing separately though, as part of
GLISS).
I don't insist on moving the baseline; discussing this further seems
to be unproductive, so let's do it your way :)
thanks for your work and your patience!
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
- Original Message -
From: "Janek Warchoł"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: "James" ; ; ;
; ;
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Hmm.
My answer to "how would we place the glyph at the correct vertical
position, above the barline?" is: i suppose that we're going to create
a \tickBreathe command; if so, i guess that defining it in this manner
tickBreathe = {
\override BreathingSign #'outside-staff-priority = something
\override BreathingSign #'staff-padding = something
\override BreathingSign #'stencil = #(...)
\breathe
}
should result in "tick breathe" appearing where we want it (i.e. i
hope that outside-staff-priority will result in placing this object
outside of the staff, and staff-padding will determine how far would
that be).
cheers,
Janek
Well, in the current version of the NR, the guidance for changing the breath
sign is:
\override BreathingSign #'text = \markup {\musicglyph
#"scripts.caesura.straight"}
No padding or anything else there. This is what I thought it best to
replicate. I am OK with providing documentation that shows how to move the
tick sign away from the top of the stave. I'm just not OK with its default
being halfway across the staff line. That's plain ugly. I've designed the
glyph to be used as a tick for a breath mark. No-one has cried out for a
similar sign for any other purpose. Let's keep the baseline in the obvious
place - at the bottom of the glyph. If you want one elsewhere, please add
another glyph.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Hmm.
My answer to "how would we place the glyph at the correct vertical
position, above the barline?" is: i suppose that we're going to create
a \tickBreathe command; if so, i guess that defining it in this manner
tickBreathe = {
\override BreathingSign #'outside-staff-priority = something
\override BreathingSign #'staff-padding = something
\override BreathingSign #'stencil = #(...)
\breathe
}
should result in "tick breathe" appearing where we want it (i.e. i
hope that outside-staff-priority will result in placing this object
outside of the staff, and staff-padding will determine how far would
that be).
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
LGTM. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/7001/mf/feta-scripts.mf File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/7001/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1781 mf/feta-scripts.mf:1781: penlabels (1,2,3,4); z4 is not defined with penpos4, so you should use `labels' instead of `penlabels'. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
- Original Message -
From: "James"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; ;
; ;
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On 28 September 2012 15:12, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Janek Warchoł"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; ;
; ; ;
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes
wrote:
This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The
natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of
the
tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of
the
line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always
do
it
with reference to its lowest extent. So I'm happy to change the
horizontal,
but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of
the
blank space.
Ah, but if you do what i propose, you enable the user to choose easily
how he wants to align the mark. He can either align it to the bottom
edge, or to the "optical center". If you keep the "vertical
situation" as is, the user will be able to easily align to the bottom
only.
What i suggest is similar to what we have in breve notehead case, only
in different axis: we have the ability to align breve note both to its
very left edge, and its reference point (which is on the left edge of
the oval, i.e. without the lines):
{ c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
{ \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
Does this convince you?
cheers,
Janek
No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to
align
to the inside bend of a tick mark.
But that's beside the point though right? :)
I mean I couldn't ever envisage half the stuff that others seem to
require before I joined the LilyPond dev lists.
I guess the point here is if you have 2 points of reference it makes
it more flexible to align than just 1 and then you have manually tweak
it.
for example if you had a square box and you wanted the tick inside it
in 'naturally; (I'm using a silly example here) that you'd not want to
align the bottom of the tick but the place where Werner was talking
(i.e. the pit of the tick).
Don't think so. If I do what Janek is suggesting, we end up with the normal
alignment point (the zero reference point) as being in the pit of the tick.
The bottom of the tick is the bottom of the bounding box, and it pushes down
below this. So if you do nothing else but change the breath mark to a tick,
then the tick sticks into the top staff line, which is ugly. If you have
what I want, then the bottom of the tick touches the top staff line, and is
easily adjusted in increments of staff line dimensions.
How much would you need to over-ride the y position to get the Janek tick to
just touch the staff line?
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Janek Warchoł writes: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Phil Holmes wrote: >> >>> Does this convince you? >> >> No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align >> to the inside bend of a tick mark. > > I suppose that someone might want to use this glyph as something else > than breathing mark, so i prefer the extra flexibility (and the inside > bend seems to be a good "optical center"), but I don't insist. If you are looking for an optical baseline, the middle of the bend seems like a more likely candidate. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Phil Holmes wrote: > >> Does this convince you? > > No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align > to the inside bend of a tick mark. I suppose that someone might want to use this glyph as something else than breathing mark, so i prefer the extra flexibility (and the inside bend seems to be a good "optical center"), but I don't insist. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On 28 September 2012 15:12, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Janek Warchoł"
>
> To: "Phil Holmes"
> Cc: ; ;
> ; ; ;
>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The
>>> natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of the
>>> tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of the
>>> line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always do
>>> it
>>> with reference to its lowest extent. So I'm happy to change the
>>> horizontal,
>>> but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of
>>> the
>>> blank space.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but if you do what i propose, you enable the user to choose easily
>> how he wants to align the mark. He can either align it to the bottom
>> edge, or to the "optical center". If you keep the "vertical
>> situation" as is, the user will be able to easily align to the bottom
>> only.
>>
>> What i suggest is similar to what we have in breve notehead case, only
>> in different axis: we have the ability to align breve note both to its
>> very left edge, and its reference point (which is on the left edge of
>> the oval, i.e. without the lines):
>>
>> { c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
>>
>> { \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
>> c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
>>
>> Does this convince you?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Janek
>
>
> No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align
> to the inside bend of a tick mark.
But that's beside the point though right? :)
I mean I couldn't ever envisage half the stuff that others seem to
require before I joined the LilyPond dev lists.
I guess the point here is if you have 2 points of reference it makes
it more flexible to align than just 1 and then you have manually tweak
it.
for example if you had a square box and you wanted the tick inside it
in 'naturally; (I'm using a silly example here) that you'd not want to
align the bottom of the tick but the place where Werner was talking
(i.e. the pit of the tick).
james
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
- Original Message -
From: "Janek Warchoł"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc: ; ;
; ; ;
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The
natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of the
tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of the
line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always do
it
with reference to its lowest extent. So I'm happy to change the
horizontal,
but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of
the
blank space.
Ah, but if you do what i propose, you enable the user to choose easily
how he wants to align the mark. He can either align it to the bottom
edge, or to the "optical center". If you keep the "vertical
situation" as is, the user will be able to easily align to the bottom
only.
What i suggest is similar to what we have in breve notehead case, only
in different axis: we have the ability to align breve note both to its
very left edge, and its reference point (which is on the left edge of
the oval, i.e. without the lines):
{ c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
{ \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
Does this convince you?
cheers,
Janek
No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align
to the inside bend of a tick mark.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The
> natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of the
> tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of the
> line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always do it
> with reference to its lowest extent. So I'm happy to change the horizontal,
> but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of the
> blank space.
Ah, but if you do what i propose, you enable the user to choose easily
how he wants to align the mark. He can either align it to the bottom
edge, or to the "optical center". If you keep the "vertical
situation" as is, the user will be able to easily align to the bottom
only.
What i suggest is similar to what we have in breve notehead case, only
in different axis: we have the ability to align breve note both to its
very left edge, and its reference point (which is on the left edge of
the oval, i.e. without the lines):
{ c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
{ \override TextScript #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
c''_\markup { \musicglyph #"noteheads.sM1double" } }
Does this convince you?
cheers,
Janek
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Updated glyph. Please review. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
- Original Message - From: "Janek Warchoł" To: "Phil Holmes" Cc: ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055) I would also place the vertical "center" of the box level with "top dip point", ie the point labeled 2r in dvi preview i see on my machine. I don't understand this. I know where 2r is, but how can in be in the centre - it's way below the centre of the glyph. See above, i hope my explanation and example is clear. This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of the tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of the line widths chosen - if you're going to place the glyph, you'd always do it with reference to its lowest extent. So I'm happy to change the horizontal, but don't propose to change the vertical spacing, except to get rid of the blank space. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Phil Holmes wrote: > >> Horizontally, i would align the center of the bounding box to the "dip >> point". This would allow "visual centering" of the glyph on something. > > Can do. This would imply that there's empty space on the left of the glyph. > Is it OK to do this? No, i mean something else. Take a look at the attachment - this is how this glyph's bounding box should look like in my opinion. You may want to take a look at bounding boxes "Arrowed Natural (arrow up)", "flat (slashed)", "Thumb" (i can see the bounding boxes when i convert the gf file to dvi and view it using xdvi. (i can send you a script doing this, if you want)). >> Vertically, i agree with Werner that the bounding box shouldn't be >> bigger than the glyph - the distance between staff and the mark should >> be achieved in some other way. > > How would I move it up without adding empty space to the bottom of the box? I suppose that the command that would change BreathingSign's stencil to this glyph would also change its padding. >> I would also place the vertical "center" >> of the box level with "top dip point", ie the point labeled 2r in dvi >> preview i see on my machine. > > I don't understand this. I know where 2r is, but how can in be in the > centre - it's way below the centre of the glyph. See above, i hope my explanation and example is clear. >> Also, do you have some snippet demonstrating this glyph along with some >> notes? If so, please post it in the tracker. > > Done. thanks. Janek <>___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Please don't use `epsilon' in set_char_box. I think the problem is that you `sharpen' a coordinate distance by doing `define_pixels (y_off)', however, only `black distances' (to use the TrueType vocabulary) like vertical or horizontal stem widths should be handled like that. In general, I would move the tick down, as Janek is suggesting. The exact position in a score should be then handled by default offsets given in Scheme code. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
- Original Message - From: To: ; ; ; Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055) Hi, thanks for including me in reviewers, Phil - i would probably miss it otherwise. The shape is ok. Personally i would make the right arm a tad thicker and a bit less curved, but that's only my opinion. As for the bounding box, i definitely think that it should be moved, both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, i would align the center of the bounding box to the "dip point". This would allow "visual centering" of the glyph on something. Can do. This would imply that there's empty space on the left of the glyph. Is it OK to do this? Vertically, i agree with Werner that the bounding box shouldn't be bigger than the glyph - the distance between staff and the mark should be achieved in some other way. How would I move it up without adding empty space to the bottom of the box? I would also place the vertical "center" of the box level with "top dip point", ie the point labeled 2r in dvi preview i see on my machine. I don't understand this. I know where 2r is, but how can in be in the centre - it's way below the centre of the glyph. Also, do you have some snippet demonstrating this glyph along with some notes? If so, please post it in the tracker. Done. Thanks, Janek http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Hi, thanks for including me in reviewers, Phil - i would probably miss it otherwise. The shape is ok. Personally i would make the right arm a tad thicker and a bit less curved, but that's only my opinion. As for the bounding box, i definitely think that it should be moved, both horizontally and vertically. Horizontally, i would align the center of the bounding box to the "dip point". This would allow "visual centering" of the glyph on something. Vertically, i agree with Werner that the bounding box shouldn't be bigger than the glyph - the distance between staff and the mark should be achieved in some other way. I would also place the vertical "center" of the box level with "top dip point", ie the point labeled 2r in dvi preview i see on my machine. Also, do you have some snippet demonstrating this glyph along with some notes? If so, please post it in the tracker. Thanks, Janek http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1774 mf/feta-scripts.mf:1774: set_char_box (0, 1.7 staff_space# + epsilon, Are you suggesting deleting the epsilon, or moving the base of the box up, or the glyph down? The glyph is above the baseline in order to move it away from the staff lines, which is how it is typeset. I added the epsilon because without it there is a rounding error, leading to the box being one unit too small. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
LGTM. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1774 mf/feta-scripts.mf:1774: set_char_box (0, 1.7 staff_space# + epsilon, I suggest to use a tightest bounding box. At least I don't see any reason to not do so. The question is whether it makes sense to give this glyph a depth (this is, to make the glyph go below the baseline), but this is only a matter of taste. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Correct. Apologies - I did that to try an experiment and didn't reset it. Thanks for picking it up. Next patch set will correct that. http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
Reviewers: lemzwerg, janek, Graham Percival,
Message:
Please review
Description:
As it says. A tick mark is a very common way of indicating a breath in
vocal music, but we have no good glyph for this. This is an attempt to
create one.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/
Affected files:
M mf/feta-scripts.mf
Index: mf/feta-scripts.mf
diff --git a/mf/feta-scripts.mf b/mf/feta-scripts.mf
index
83859dbe66fc2b4af51bd7bf63947d9700db6913..89ccc25370fa58c9d23e436dc4698630e2874a57
100644
--- a/mf/feta-scripts.mf
+++ b/mf/feta-scripts.mf
@@ -1736,8 +1736,49 @@ fet_beginchar ("Straight
caesura", "caesura.straight");
labels(1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b);
fet_endchar;
+% A tick character to use instead of a comma or caesura as a breath mark,
+% Very common in vocal notation
-fet_beginchar ("snap pizzicato (Bartok pizzicato)", "snappizzicato");
+fet_beginchar ("Tick mark", "tickmark");
+ save end_rad, bot_rad, pat, y_off;
+ end_rad = linethickness/2;
+ bot_rad = linethickness;
+ path pat;
+
+ y_off# := 0.2 staff_space#;
+ define_pixels (y_off);
+
+ pickup pencircle scaled end_rad;
+
+ lft x1 = 0;
+ y1 = 0.8 staff_space + y_off;
+
+ x2 = 0.6 staff_space;
+ y2l = 0 + y_off;
+
+ top rt z3 = (1.7 staff_space, 1.7 staff_space + y_off);
+ z4 = (0, staff_space + y_off);
+
+ penpos2(0.4 staff_space, 90);
+ penpos3(end_rad, angle(z4-z3)+90);
+ penpos1(end_rad, angle(z2-z1)+90);
+
+ pat = z1r..top z1..z1l{z2-z1}
+ ..{z2-(z1+(0.3 staff_space,0))}z2l+(-bot_rad, bot_rad)
+ ..z2l..z2l+(bot_rad, bot_rad){z3-(0.6 staff_space,
0)-z2}
+ ..{z3-z4}z3r..rt z3..{z4-z3}z3l
+ ..{z2-(z3-(0.6 staff_space,0))}rt z2r..{z1-z2}lft
z2r{z1-z2}
+ ..cycle;
+ fill pat;
+
+ set_char_box (0, 1.7 staff_space# + epsilon,
+ 0, y_off# + 1.7 staff_space#);
+
+
+ penlabels (1,2,3,4);
+fet_endchar;
+
+fet_beginchar ("snap pizzicato (Bartok pizzicato)", "snappizzicat");
save height, width, thickness, superness;
height# = 4/15 staffsize#;
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Adds tick mark to scripts (issue 6568055)
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1781
mf/feta-scripts.mf:1781: fet_beginchar ("snap pizzicato (Bartok
pizzicato)", "snappizzicat");
It would appear you renamed this glyph to "snappizzicat" instead of the
previous "snappizzicato". I can't imagine this being anything other
than a mistake.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
