[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [CVS 2002-08-18 09:13]
>
> There is a serious bug in the fetaXX fonts: The metrics are
> resolution-dependent! As a consequence, feta16.600pk anda
> feta16.1800pk and its tfm files, to take an example, have different
> checksums.
>
> A diff on the tfm files (using tftopl) starts like this:
>
> --- feta16.600.pl Sun Aug 18 12:06:05 2002
> +++ feta16.1800.pl Sun Aug 18 12:05:55 2002
> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
> (DESIGNSIZE R 16.0)
> (COMMENT DESIGNSIZE IS IN POINTS)
> (COMMENT OTHER SIZES ARE MULTIPLES OF DESIGNSIZE)
> -(CHECKSUM O 16014264425)
> +(CHECKSUM O 36011723524)
> (FONTDIMEN
> (SLANT R 0.0)
> (SPACE R 0.0)
> @@ -32,12 +32,12 @@
> )
> (CHARACTER O 4
> (CHARWD R 0.15)
> - (CHARHT R 0.223644)
> + (CHARHT R 0.223632)
> (CHARDP R 0.262501)
> )
> (CHARACTER O 5
> (CHARWD R 0.15)
> - (CHARHT R 0.223644)
> + (CHARHT R 0.223632)
> )
> ...
>
>
> It looks like an epsilon quantity being added or subtracted
> somewhere...
I know there is something fishy going on (I noticed the checksum
errors), but I don't really know how to find the culprit. Can you
investigate?
We have
fet_beginchar("longa rest", "-2", "longarest");
set_char_box(0, breve_rest_x#, breve_rest_y#, breve_rest_y#);
draw_block ((0,-floor (breve_rest_y)), (breve_rest_x, floor
(breve_rest_y)));
fet_endchar;
fet_beginchar("breve rest", "-1", "breverest");
set_char_box(0, breve_rest_x#, 0, breve_rest_y#);
draw_block ((0,0), (breve_rest_x, floor (breve_rest_y)));
fet_endchar;
breve_rest_y# = staff_space#;
breve_rest_x# = 3/5 staff_space#;
staffsize#:=20pt#; % feta20.mf
or is there a problem with equalities vs. assignments?
(So, how much do we get for a bug in MF? :-)
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
Bug-lilypond mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
