On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:06 AM Malte Meyn wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.04.19 um 21:12 schrieb Urs Liska:
> > I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say is
> that we should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before spending
> manpower on Emmentaler extensions.
> > Which I think
Am 02.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Malte Meyn:
Am 02.04.19 um 09:34 schrieb Urs Liska:
But that probably should wait until the release of 2.20.0 and
2.21.0, shouldn’t it?
I don't think so. Of course such a fundamental change doesn't belong
in 2.20, but adding stuff to the development branch
Am 02.04.19 um 09:34 schrieb Urs Liska:
But that probably should wait until the release of 2.20.0 and 2.21.0,
shouldn’t it?
I don't think so. Of course such a fundamental change doesn't belong in
2.20, but adding stuff to the development branch doesn't seem
problematic to me. If it should
Am 02.04.19 um 09:05 schrieb Malte Meyn:
Am 01.04.19 um 21:12 schrieb Urs Liska:
I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say
is that we should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before
spending manpower on Emmentaler extensions.
Which I think is true and not. If
Am 01.04.19 um 21:12 schrieb Urs Liska:
I fully agree with all of that, but I think what Johan wanted to say is that we
should *first* work towards DMuFL compliance before spending manpower on
Emmentaler extensions.
Which I think is true and not. If there is someone willing to spend efforts
Am 1. April 2019 20:07:47 MESZ schrieb Malte Meyn :
>
>
>Am 01.04.19 um 12:01 schrieb Johan Vromans:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn
>wrote:
>>
>>> SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t
>>> contradict, do they?
>>
>> They do, in so far that with
Am 01.04.19 um 12:01 schrieb Johan Vromans:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn wrote:
SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t
contradict, do they?
They do, in so far that with limited resources you cannot do both.
[sending on-list, sorry Johan for the
On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 09:16:24 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 11:37:42 (+1100), Andrew Bernard wrote:
> >> Hi Valentin,
> >>
> >> Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard - I have
> >> been a programmer for more than forty
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:26 +0200, Malte Meyn wrote:
> SMuFL integration and using Metafont for glyph creation don’t
> contradict, do they?
They do, in so far that with limited resources you cannot do both.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
David Wright writes:
> On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 11:37:42 (+1100), Andrew Bernard wrote:
>> Hi Valentin,
>>
>> Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard - I have
>> been a programmer for more than forty years. [Despite that, I still cannot
>> come to grips with the lilypond
Am 01.04.19 um 08:59 schrieb Johan Vromans:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:37:42 +1100, Andrew Bernard
wrote:
Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard -
As a retired TeXnician I have deep respect for TeX and MetaFont.
Nevertheless I think the right way now is to go for widely accepted
Hi Andrew and Johan,
Am 01.04.19 um 08:59 schrieb Johan Vromans:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:37:42 +1100, Andrew Bernard
wrote:
Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard -
As a retired TeXnician I have deep respect for TeX and MetaFont.
Nevertheless I think the right way now is to go for
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2019-03-31 6:14 pm, edes wrote:
>> el 2019-04-01 a las 11:37 Andrew Bernard escribió:
>>
>>> Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard
>>
>> unlike valentin, i admire you already even if you don't succeed. i
>> don't
>> know what admire the most:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:37:42 +1100, Andrew Bernard
wrote:
> Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard -
As a retired TeXnician I have deep respect for TeX and MetaFont.
Nevertheless I think the right way now is to go for widely accepted
standards where possible.
So I'd rather see decent
On 2019-03-31 6:14 pm, edes wrote:
el 2019-04-01 a las 11:37 Andrew Bernard escribió:
Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard
unlike valentin, i admire you already even if you don't succeed. i
don't
know what admire the most: the determination of the "now to learn
On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 11:37:42 (+1100), Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard - I have
> been a programmer for more than forty years. [Despite that, I still cannot
> come to grips with the lilypond source, and all my lilypond
el 2019-04-01 a las 11:37 Andrew Bernard escribió:
> Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard
unlike valentin, i admire you already even if you don't succeed. i don't
know what admire the most: the determination of the "now to learn
metafont", or the optimism of the
Hi Valentin,
Thanks so much. Now to learn Metafont then. Shouldn't be too hard - I have
been a programmer for more than forty years. [Despite that, I still cannot
come to grips with the lilypond source, and all my lilypond questions all
appear to be from a beginner. :-) ]
The immediate task is
On 3/31/19, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> To the point, I want some various string mute symbols. Would it be better
> for me to look into adding glyphs to Emmentaler with metafont? How
> extensible is Emmentaler?
Very extensible; quite a few new glyphs have been added recently.
That is, however,
What is the current state of the art in using SMuFL fonts with lilypond
2.19.83? The blog posts I read referred to openlilylib modules to enable
it, but with many references to issues such as subtle sizing problems etc
etc. Is this ready for pro. use yet? Will it ever be, or are the
20 matches
Mail list logo
