Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > 2017-10-08 13:36 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> >> I think using a different layout than the one your output appears in >> is not a supported idea. Output definitions are hemimetabolic. They >> may be an "output definition" but it's not like they are being used >> to instantiate a separate "output" type like a context definition is >> instantiated into a context. Instead, output definitions may receive >> the side effects from their uses (which include managing the writing >> of a Midi/PDF file, and in this case, causing font definitions). > > Thanks for your explanations. > > In the german forum it was attempted to set 'line-width to some > calculated value relying on the found 'line-width in layout. With > multiple calls the found line-width will become the calculated one > from the previous call not the original, thus the idea of cloning the > layout, similiar to ly:music-deep-copy. > > Iiuc, you would say it's a not supported (in this case read: bad) > idea.
Cloning outputs is fine before they become part of a score/book. But once you use them for turning markup into stencils, those stencils should appear in the book/score using that output. So in usage, there is sort of a distinction between an "output definition" and an actual "output", but the data type is just the same. Hemimetabolic. There is a moment in its life time after which cloning becomes a bad idea, somewhat depending on what you need the clone for. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
