Now that generalized fusion support is in Gregorio, I was wondering if we should continue fusing the torculus resulpinus flexus in the old way.
The torculus resupinus flexus is currently implemented with a "leading glyph" for the head and a four-note glyph for the tail. This requires 520 glyphs in the font. Using the new fusion technique (which would be a one line change to actually make it work, and then a clean-up effort to remove dead code), the figure would be made of four fused glyphs. Aside from the handling of the punctum mora on the middle notes, which the new technique would place differently and which the old technique didn't place correctly anyway, these two methods produce the same results in print. It's a different story for on-screen display, where rounding errors can cause the constituent glyphs to be slightly misaligned when viewed on a screen. In the newer method, there are more glyphs, meaning more points for potential misalignment on screen. The primary savings would be 520 glyphs in the font, but there would also be a modest reduction in number of macros (defined characters and special macros for fusion) and a reduction in the number of sign position cases. It also makes the code a bit easier to maintain going forward since there are fewer cases to handle. I have no particular recommendation, since we do still have room in the BMP-PUA. It's really a matter of leaner code versus screen rendering quality. Does anyone have an opinion? Henry _______________________________________________ Gregorio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-devel
