Added oriscus cavum glyphs. #727
Conversation
|
Ok for me, thanks a lot! |
|
In fact, I've just asked the person who asked me, is that ok to wait for her answer? Maybe the lines are too thin... I admit it's a bit strange as they have the same width as others, but they look thinner... |
| switch (note->u.note.liquescentia) { | ||
| case L_AUCTUS_DESCENDENS: | ||
| note->u.note.liquescentia = L_AUCTUS_ASCENDENS; | ||
| // fall through |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a compilation error on this comment
|
I got an aswer: the lines are indeed too think (for greciliae only), here is a comparison with other cavum glyphs:
I admit I'm a bit surprised as the thickness is the same, but the eye doesn't realize that apparently... do you think you could make lines a bit thicker? |
|
Edit: Never mind, I read "think" as "thick", and I guess you meant "thin". |
|
Done. Let's not merge this until the person is happy with the shape. |
|
Sample:
|
|
Looks better, but the upper right-hand corner of the oriscus cavum looks a bit thin. |
|
Updated. How does this look?
|
|
To my eye that looks perfect. |
|
Thanks for helping me to improve the shape. Let's see if @eroux's contact agrees. |
|
Sorry, the words "thin" and "thick" are confusing for me! Anyway, this looks perfect, merging |
Fixes #724.
I think the glyphs in greciliae and parmesan are passable, but the shape of the oriscus in gregorio has some irregular control points, so I had a lot of trouble making it look right. Any fixes are welcomed.
Other that this, I think this is ready for review and merge if satisfactory.
All current tests pass, and I updated some tests to include the new figures.