Trevor Bača wrote:
But what about the (semantic) grouping that I started this thread
with? Doesn't it still make sense to group, for example, these ...
ragged-bottom
ragged-last-bottom
system-count
between-system-space
between-system-padding
horizontal-shift
... settings together somehow? I mean, these things actually do
pertain to each other at a logical level, right?
Yes, definitely. But maybe this logical, user-centric division can be
handled perfectly cleanly just in the docs? The docs for settings can
then look something like this (and this is obviously just a sketch,
some pseudocode for the actual docs that I'll clean up long before
sending to Graham):
Leaving the question of syntax for the moment, one crucial limitation in
LilyPond
today (unless this changed over the last couple of months) is that you
cannot
specify settings like ragged-bottom or ragged-last-bottom individually
per score.
Of course, such a possibility doesn't make sense if you have several
short scores
on the same page, but if you have inserted a page break in between each
score,
it certainly makes lots of sense. Hmm, maybe it's better to think of it
the same way
as the \enlargethispage command in LaTeX, which you can specify anywhere in
the input file and which applies to the current page in the generated
output (if you
have several of these commands in the input that corresponds to one and
the same
page, then the last one of them overrides the others).
I find it a severe limitation that the current \paper{...} related
settings only can
be specified per \book.
When it comes to syntax, I just want to remind everybody that we used to
have
a single directive \paper corresponding to the current \layout and
\book, until
version 2.4, but it was split into the two in an attempt to clarify what
you could
do where. See
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.4/Documentation/topdocs/out-www/NEWS.html
/Mats
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
