Citat Juergen Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > According to the recent discussion about blot_diameter, I tried to fix > all font symbols that I contributed so far. Still, I do not fully > understand the concept. Does blot_diameter only apply to convex > edges?
Yes, I guess so. The problem is that Han-Wen in a previous mail (back in december) wrote * preferably no sharp inside angles. but on the other hand he also wrote * Have no clotting. Theese two are in direct contradiction as visual clotting reduction is made by SHARPENING the inside angles. I guess that the first claim was a misthought from Han-Wen. > Does it only apply to the outline of a symbol? No. > Does the > concept of blot_diameter imply that lines always must have a width of > at least blot_diameter? What about penrazors, penstrokes and all the > other MetaFont constructs that typically produce sharp edges? Don't use them. I think that my soft_penstroke macro produces fairly nice results - so I think that you could just use that instead. > The attached patch is relative to my previous patch. Hopefully this does not contradict with my feta-patch. Is there a reason why you didn't apply that before doing your own changes? -Rune _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
