Re: Arrow-glyphs in Feta

[Simon Albrecht]

On 29.12.2016 22:04, James wrote:

Is it simply for the same reason any font has a separate character that
is a 'rotated' version of its counterpart?

e.g. '<' and '>' or '/' and '\'

Why*wouldn't*  you make separate font 'objects' for fundamental
glyphs?


Those have semantically different, well-delimited functions. An arrow, 
however, can occur in any direction, and it seems that the Feta glyphs 
were not designed for use as actual text glyphs, but in close 
conjunction with the _graphic_ markup command \arrow-head, currently 
choosing one of four directions. And for a command to be used in 
graphics, I think rotation would be appropriate.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Arrow-glyphs in Feta (was: \arrow markup command)

[James]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:59:10 +0100
Simon Albrecht  wrote:

> On 23.12.2016 22:34, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> > Why does the Feta font have one glyph for each of the 4 directions
> > in which an arrow head generated with \arrow-head can point? Why
> > not simply rotate one glyph in the first place? (I’m sure the
> > Metafont code does just that, though it would strike me more
> > logical to do it on a ‘higher’ level.)   
> 
> Can anyone comment on this Feta question?

Is it simply for the same reason any font has a separate character that
is a 'rotated' version of its counterpart?

e.g. '<' and '>' or '/' and '\'

Why *wouldn't* you make separate font 'objects' for fundamental
glyphs?

James


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Arrow-glyphs in Feta (was: \arrow markup command)

[tisimst]

Hi, Simon!

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Simon Albrecht-2 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n198583...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> On 23.12.2016 22:34, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> > Why does the Feta font have one glyph for each of the 4 directions in
> > which an arrow head generated with \arrow-head can point? Why not
> > simply rotate one glyph in the first place? (I’m sure the Metafont
> > code does just that, though it would strike me more logical to do it
> > on a ‘higher’ level.)
>
> Can anyone comment on this Feta question?


Here's what I could tell from looking at the source code. The function
first creates one barb of the arrow, then mirrors it vertically to create
the full arrowhead. Without any other transformations, this creates the
right-pointing arrowhead. Each of the other glyphs follow the same steps to
this point, and then transforms the glyph, either by negative scaling or by
rotation, to get the others. This applies for both open and closed
arrowheads.

HTH,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/arrow-markup-command-tp198440p198587.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel