Re: Super and sub

2016-02-07 15:21 GMT+01:00 Noeck : >> To login on Rietveld ... > > Perhaps I should rather ask: where is Rietveld? I found this > https://codereview.appspot.com/search?base=http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git/trunk/ > and tried to sign in. But Google wants my

Re: Super and sub

Hi, to follow the instructions given on http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/git_002dcl I need a Rietveld account. I have a sourceforge account for testlilyissues, is that equivalent to an Allura account? Do I need someting more to use git-cl correctly? Best, Joram

Re: Super and sub

On 07.02.2016 15:07, Noeck wrote: to follow the instructions given on http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/git_002dcl I need a Rietveld account. To login on Rietveld, you need any Google account, like you might use for Gmail, YouTube, or have been using for Google Code.

Re: Super and sub

> To login on Rietveld ... Perhaps I should rather ask: where is Rietveld? I found this https://codereview.appspot.com/search?base=http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git/trunk/ and tried to sign in. But Google wants my phone number, I guess I am out :( Best, Joram

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so it's not making things worse. I suggest to push this patch, and then work on making

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/12/01 09:16:14, Keith wrote: On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:56:09 -0800, mailto:janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote: I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so it's not making things worse. I

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/12/01 09:31:20, dak wrote: \fontsize does, but \small, \large, \huge, \super (!) all do an override to font-size which does _not_ affect baseline-skip in contrast to the markup command \fontsize changing everything in concert. We know that, David. See above were we considered It

Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

https://codereview.appspot.com/35320043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/35320043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode4000 scm/define-markup-commands.scm:4000: (* 0.33 baseline-skip) I'm not sure a

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/11/30 08:45:14, Keith wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 23:59:52 -0800, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote: I'm not sure a multiple of baseline-skip is the best metric (possibly for limiting height in cramped situations, but not even sure about that). It seems that it would not follow most

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/11/30 08:54:27, dak wrote: The question is rather what the point of the patch is. I read This brings chordNames and text superscripts into better agreement with the shifts in user-provided scans. but it would seem to do so only for a particular font size. Well, for a particular

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 11/30/13 5:52 PM, k-ohara5...@oco.net k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote: Do you know a better quantity on which to scale the raising of superscripts? What about font-size? Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On 2013/12/01 02:09:01, c_sorensen_byu.edu wrote: What about font-size? That should work. I wonder, though, why font-size was not used initially. I'll try it next weekend. I would really be trying to estimate the x-height in a 'normal' font, and since that comes up often, I would make a

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

Would it be possible to directly compute the height of the current font's `x' glyph as a basis value for raising and lowering? https://codereview.appspot.com/35320043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 21:21:49 -0800, lemzw...@googlemail.com wrote: Would it be possible to directly compute the height of the current font's `x' glyph as a basis value for raising and lowering? https://codereview.appspot.com/35320043/ I tried to do that for centering dynamics on their

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

Do you know if the fonts, in the form LilyPond uses, will report their x-height, and if so how to get the information out of pango? I've just looked up the source code, and the concept of the x-height doesn't seem to be part of Pango. The nearest I can find is the strikethrough position, cf.

Re: Reduce offsets of \super and \sub (issue 35320043)

LGTM I have one request: this patch makes the situation better, and even if the baseline-skip approach is wrong, it was already used that way so it's not making things worse. I suggest to push this patch, and then work on making this smarter (in the spirit of best is the enemy of the good).

Make markup commands \super and \sub produce correct placement (issue 14438075)

Well, one thing to note is that LilyPond should be more concerned about placing, say, flats and sharps in a reasonable relation to a chord symbol (usually uppercase) than to place mathematical super- and subscripts like expected. Of course we should go for both if feasible, but I don't see that

Re: Make markup commands \super and \sub produce correct placement (issue 14438075)

LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/14438075/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel