Urs Liska-3 wrote > If I had to choose between 3) and 4) I would go for 4), but actually I'd > suggest to go for something between those two.
Good point. To narrow down the number of suggestions, I just took the extreme cases. If we go for natural width flats, the overlap can be optimized. Urs Liska-3 wrote > The problem I have with 3) is the upper edge of the intersection between > the left and right glyph: I have the impression (although this should be > verified in a realistic-sized setting with notational context) that this > section is somewhat blurred because the line is still nearly horizontal > at the intersection. Yes, these big proof versions may be fine, but in the end, they'll have to be reviewed in realistic sizes (and, by the way, in all Emmentaler sizes from 11 to 26. My personal "ideal" double-flat overlap would be so that the upper arches (thinking the stems away) form nice and harmonic arcades like they do in the Antiqua letter m, if you know what I mean... Here you go with my issue3356 testing PDF, this time with an intermediate 3./4. version: test-issue3356.pdf <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/test-issue3356.pdf> All the best, Torsten -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user