Add hihat halfopen glyph to font

Add hihat halfopen glyph to font

[Carl, 2011-07-14 01:43:56]

Here is the patch for the new hihat halfopen glyph as requested in Issue 1688.

If you are not building in a clean directory, you will need to do

rm mf/out/* && make

in order to generate the font with the new glyph

[Janek Warchol, 2011-07-14 19:50:37]

The slash looks too long to me, especially when compared to halfopen
(unstopped).  I'd change factor to

factor := 11/10 * sqrt(1 + 25/16);
or maybe even
factor := 4/4 * sqrt(1 + 25/16);

otherwise LGTM.
thanks,
Janek

[Carl, 2011-07-14 20:07:53]

On 2011/07/14 19:50:37, Janek Warchol wrote:
> The slash looks too long to me, especially when compared to halfopen
> (unstopped). 

I wondered about that myself.  The line is exactly the same length as the line
in halfopen.  Maybe I should make the glyph the same height as halfopen, instead
of having the line be the same length.

I haven't been able to find any good examples of the notation on the web to be
able to reference for the appropriate size.

Thanks,

Carl

[Janek Warchol, 2011-07-14 20:23:46]

2011/7/14  <Carl.D.Sorensen@gmail.com>:
> On 2011/07/14 19:50:37, Janek Warchol wrote:
>>
>> The slash looks too long to me, especially when compared to halfopen
>> (unstopped).
>
> I wondered about that myself.  The line is exactly the same length as
> the line in halfopen.

Either dvi proofing (run
  mf feta20; gftodvi $feta20.2602gf
and open resulting dvi file, hihat is 72nd glyph) fools me or you've
miscalculated it.
I've measured it on my screen and the slash in hihat halfopen is about
1.25 longer than slash in halfopen unstopped.

> Maybe I should make the glyph the same height as
> halfopen, instead of having the line be the same length.
>
> I haven't been able to find any good examples of the notation on the web
> to be able to reference for the appropriate size.

I don't have anything to compare too, but i think it'll be fine if we
just make it consistent with halfopen unstopped.

cheers,
Janek

[pkx166h, 2011-07-14 20:35:21]

Make and reg tests ok.

[Neil Puttock, 2011-07-14 20:37:03]

Hi Carl,

I can't comment on the code itself, but the name of the new glyph seems wrong to
me, since it implies that the existing glyph isn't for hihat.  IIRC, it was
added specifically for this purpose, and looking at Elaine Gould's example (p.
298 of Behind Bars) I'd say we already have the correct default glyph for
half-open hihat.

Cheers,
Neil

[Carl, 2011-08-17 04:44:09]

I've got a new patch set up.

I changed the name to halfopenvertical.

I think that the halfopen symbol currently in the font is used for french horn,
but Gould does use it for hihat.  So I decided to just describe the symbol,
rather than specify its use.

Also, I shortened up the vertical stroke.  Janek, you were right about the line
being 25% too long.  I had calculated the length in terms of the width of the
zero, but drew it in terms of the height of the zero.  At any rate, I shortened
it by even more than the 25%, because I think it looks better.

Thanks for your earlier reviews!

[lemzwerg, 2011-08-17 05:25:36]

LGTM.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4714043/diff/10001/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4714043/diff/10001/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode633
mf/feta-scripts.mf:633: height# / 2, height# / 2);
Vertical align mismatch.

[Carl, 2011-08-17 05:35:34]

Thanks Werner.  Fixed.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4714043/diff/10001/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4714043/diff/10001/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode633
mf/feta-scripts.mf:633: height# / 2, height# / 2);
On 2011/08/17 05:25:36, lemzwerg wrote:
> Vertical align mismatch.

Done.

[janek, 2011-08-22 20:10:24]

LGTM!
(and sorry for delay)
thanks,
Janek