On 2018/04/10 17:21:43, Malte Meyn wrote:
> make slashturn 4% thinner at the center (instead of 10% thicker)
IMHO that’s an improvement.
Yes, I agree.
> haydnturn 0%
> thicker (instead of 10% thicker)
I’m not sure whether this is, the glyph shouldn’t be too slim to match
the
overall
On 2018/04/10 17:21:43, Malte Meyn wrote:
make slashturn 4% thinner at the center (instead of 10% thicker)
IMHO that’s an improvement.
haydnturn 0%
thicker (instead of 10% thicker)
I’m not sure whether this is, the glyph shouldn’t be too slim to match
the overall style of the Feta font.
On 2018/04/10 09:47:31, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
This is gorgeous! Thanks very much!
Is the \haydnturn supposed to be symmetrical w.r.t. the stem? To me it
looks as
if it weighs slightly more on the left, but maybe I'm wrong? (And I'm
also not
sure if this would be a problem if I were
This is gorgeous! Thanks very much!
Is the \haydnturn supposed to be symmetrical w.r.t. the stem? To me it
looks as if it weighs slightly more on the left, but maybe I'm wrong?
(And I'm also not sure if this would be a problem if I were right.)
(The Henle score that prompted me to ask in the
On 2018/04/08 18:05:49, Dan Eble wrote:
Having two symbols available does not necessarily require having
unique commands
for them. For example, LilyPond supports different styles of
multi-measure
rests, but they're all represented with R. I'm trying to understand
whether
these scripts
On 2018/04/08 17:43:36, simon.albrecht wrote:
I’m not sure what exactly the difference in performing is, but that’s
not for us to consider; it’s important for scholarly editing (of
mid-to-late 18th century music, especially Haydn) to have this symbol
available.
Having two symbols available
On 2018/04/08 17:08:42, Dan Eble wrote:
Is there a performance difference between these two scripts? I read
quickly
through the thread referenced in the ticket, but I couldn't find the
answer.
I don’t know; I’m not even sure whether \haydnturn should be played as
\mordent or as \turn. The
On 08.04.2018 19:08, nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a performance difference between these two scripts? I read
quickly through the thread referenced in the ticket, but I couldn't find
the answer.
I’m not sure what exactly the difference in performing is, but that’s
not for us
Is there a performance difference between these two scripts? I read
quickly through the thread referenced in the ticket, but I couldn't find
the answer.
https://codereview.appspot.com/340660043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Very nice! LGTM.
https://codereview.appspot.com/340660043/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/340660043/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode757
mf/feta-scripts.mf:757: set_char_box (wd# / 2, wd# / 2, ht# / 2 *
height_factor, ht# / 2 *
10 matches
Mail list logo
