On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, pushed. Let me know if you find any problems. >> >> doesnt this equally mess up the vertical alignment, this time of normal text? > > More to the point, I'd expect the fix to be adding another property > (font-tight-rendering, or similar), which controls the tight vs. > nontight mode; time sigs and similar would use the tight mode.
Previous to your changes, IIRC, text_stencil() was never called. text_stencil() might have had callers when the "char" and "text" stencil expressions were still used, but I think those were obsoleted a while ago. In other words, I don't think a "tight" versus "non-tight" bbox is still relevant. Though I could be wrong. I'll do a regtest check later, but the vertical alignment of normal text looks okay upon casual inspection. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
