Talk:159edo/Notation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→My Second Idea for a Notation System: image update: glyphs refined |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
::::: If 60-degree angles don't work as well, then we can reinstate the 45-degree angles, but regardless, the cross strokes still need to be thick like you have them now. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | ::::: If 60-degree angles don't work as well, then we can reinstate the 45-degree angles, but regardless, the cross strokes still need to be thick like you have them now. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::::: Please have a look on the new version of [[:File:Quarter-accidentals-narrow-rastmic-wide.png]] (maybe a browser refresh is needed). I made the corresponding vertical lines the same length, the cross strokes are thicker with ends that reflect the vertical direction again. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
::: Oh, and I should also point out that for EDOs where the rastma is not tempered out, but the half-apotome also exists, (think [[318edo]]) the rastmic accidentals would not be used because 33/32 takes priority, and... well... because the half-apotome is not formed by tempering out the rastma in such EDOs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | ::: Oh, and I should also point out that for EDOs where the rastma is not tempered out, but the half-apotome also exists, (think [[318edo]]) the rastmic accidentals would not be used because 33/32 takes priority, and... well... because the half-apotome is not formed by tempering out the rastma in such EDOs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | ||