Re: issue 5312: Key cancellation glyph position inconsistent (issue 343020043 by address@hidden)

[torsten . haemmerle]

On 2018/04/24 21:49:37, Carl wrote:
> On 2018/04/24 18:43:45, Be-3 wrote:

> > The intervals are just *approximating* the outlines of a run-of-the
mill
> > natural glyph. I even played around with the concept using squared
paper.
> > This approach more or less relies on the fact that the
square/parallelogram
> > part of a natural glyph will be one stave-space high independent of
the font
> > used, just like a notehead in *any* font will be one stave-space
high.

> So it's a reasonable approximation that the box part of the natural
will extend
> about 3/4 staff spaces above the staff position of the natural, and
the
> descender
> will  descend about 1.5 staff spaces below.

> Seems like a reasonable estimate to me, even if it's not exact for a
particular
> font.
> You can't get too far away from that and still fit in a staff.

> Thanks,

> Carl

Agreed, Carl,

And, IMHO, there is no need for exaggerated exactness: as soon as two
corners get too close (no matter how close exactly), we need a wee bit
of extra padding.
The main reason for the 3/4 staff spaces, to be honest, was that the two

intervals will be just touching (with intersection length 0) for the
corner-to-corner constellation.

All the best,
Torsten

https://codereview.appspot.com/343020043/