Create composite glyphs?

I will give it a look again. Where do you enter the completed “recipe”?

Into the “Glyph” > “Generate Glyphs…” dialog.

got it! Tried it and got odd result, even after putting in anchors, the top figure jumps to the right instead of aligning on the anchors or even centered? See attached:

Can you send me a file that shows this?

Be happy to. I assume you mean the Glyphs file.

I sent it to you as a message, does that work?

I got the file.

In the “nut” change the anchor name to “center”, and in the numbers to “_center”.

Will try that, thanks!

That worked! Thanks!

Working with composite generation of glyphs with diacritics, all my composites come out at 600 units, no matter what the base glyph width was. Here is visual:

Do you have anchors in the A and the marks (press Cmd+u to get default ones).

Yes, I have manually placed anchors on all glyphs. They seem to be ignored.

I have made no settings other than on the base glyphs and component diacritics. EVERY composite I make ignores the right sidebearing of the base glyph and defaults to 600 units. I have made no changes to defaults, this is plain vanilla Gluphs 2.3. See attached:

Can you send me the .glyphs file? Best to support (at) (this website without www). I will have a look.

Will do.

Your anchors are wrong. Have a look at this:

The letters need anchors without an underscore and the marks need one with underscore.
And I would suggest to put the “top” anchor in the lowercase at the x-height and in the uppercase at the cap height. That gives better consistency and control.

That is the opposite of what you told me above?
I have always used the underscore on the mark and the plain mark on the glyph. I only did it this time because of your previous comment.

You need to decide what your main glyph is (where to take the spacing). If you use the ‘nut’ for this, you could have a different width of the but fractions then the small figures.
But if you decide to use one of the numbers as base you need to set up a chain anchors with a plain anchor in the base and a _+plain in the nut and another plain anchor in the nut. And so on.


  • one.subs has a “nut” anchor (kind of a the top of the bounding box)
  • nut has “_nut” (just below the bounding box) and “nut” (above)
  • one.subs has a “_nut” (below).
    You need to add the components in that direction. Then each component is positioned that the “_nut” anchor sits on top of the previous “nut” anchor.

I had a look at the file and in the case of the design in question, I suggested a different alignment method, purely with consecutive component placement and kerning between numerators, the nut fraction slash, and the denominators.

@Dezcom: I outlined it in detail in the e-mail to you.

Thank you so much for that email and all of your kind help!