Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 13, 2009 2:49 PM
That said, I could have done the same mistake as you did a week
ago by
moving @afourpaper to macros.itexi :-P
Ok, I'll move them out.
Thanks Graham - that will fix it. I'd have spotted
this sooner if I'd looked at learning.tely :(
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 03:44:00PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le dimanche 13 septembre 2009 à 09:44 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Here, let's do a quick test. Add an @afourpaper to one of the
> > manuals, but not the others. Wait a day, then see how they both
> > look on kainhofer.
>
Le dimanche 13 septembre 2009 à 09:44 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Is lilypond-book affected by the macro expansions?
>
> I assumed it was, but perhaps not.
>
> Here, let's do a quick test. Add an @afourpaper to one of the
> manuals, but not the others. Wait a day, then see how they bo
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 09:14:48AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:20 PM
>
>>> It appears to be a side effect of some other change to
>>> lilypond-book,
>>> which I suspect now picks up 'smallbook' rather than 'A4' for ly
>>> fragments.
>
> I
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:20 PM
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:00 AM
It was not deliberate to change the docs lnie-width.
I that case I'd like to change it back.
No argumen
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:00 AM
>> It was not deliberate to change the docs lnie-width.
>
> I that case I'd like to change it back.
No argument here. :)
> It appears to be a side effect of some other
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:00 AM
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The change from 160\mm to 5\in shortens the line
by around 33\mm, which wrecks at least one
example
It was not deliberate to change the docs lnie-width.
I that cas
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:16:28PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> The change from 160\mm to 5\in shortens the line
> by around 33\mm, which wrecks at least one
> example
I have a vague notion that somebody did something to paper
definitions and margins, but maybe I'm thinking of Michael's (sp)
wor
I've just noticed that the line-width, set in
the paper block in ly fragments in the docs,
has changed recently. The latest development
release on lilypond.org has
\paper {
#(define dump-extents #t)
line-width = 160\mm - 2.0 * 0.4\in
ragged-right = ##t
indent = 0\mm
force-assignment = #""
