Trevor Bača wrote:
OTOH, I really do believe that the reason most
users walk around without a solid model of file structure (or score
structure) in their heads isn't because chapters 3 - 5 (which are
*amazingly* helpful and huge improvement over the previous manual,
which was essentially silent o
Trevor Bača wrote:
I dunno. I don't wanna type more stuff (explicit \score and \book and
whatever) all the time, but I'm pretty convinced that both file
structure and score structure will remain confusing for new and even
experienced users right up until the point that we do make such a
requireme
On 2/8/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>> Wow. I really like this. Anyone else?
>
> I don't.
I don't like it either, but for different reasons.
- how do identifiers work? Where do we define them? Does it make sense
for an identifi
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl D. Sorensen
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 7:48 AM
> >
> > independenty of this
> >
> > \book {
> > \score {
> > \layout {
> > %% A
> > }
> > }
> > \paper {
> >%% B
> > }
> >}
> >
> >
> No, top-level \paper sets a default for the \book level \paper.
> top-level \layout sets a default for \score level \layout.
>
> \layout { X }
> \paper { Y }
>
> mean
>
> $defaultlayout = \layout { \$defaultlayout X } $defaultpaper
> = \layout { \$defaultpaper X }
>
> independenty of this
On 2/8/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> The first command sets the size of all pages. The second command sets
> the size of the pages that the \paper block applies to – if the \paper
> block is at the top of the file, then it will apply to all pages. If
> t
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> The first command sets the size of all pages. The second command sets
> the size of the pages that the \paper block applies to – if the \paper
> block is at the top of the file, then it will apply to all pages. If
> the \paper block is inside a \book, then the paper size wi
Trevor Bača escreveu:
>> > So this means there are really three levels of scope at which these
>> > settings can be made ...
>> >
>> > 1. at score level (which is most specific)
>> > 2. at book level (which is intermediate), and
>> > 3. at top level
>> >
>> > ... as reflected in the following examp
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> %%% BEGIN %%%
>
> \new File \with {
> \sourcefilename "backend-svg.ly"
> \sourcefileline 0
> #(ly:set-option 'backend 'svg)
> #(set! output-count 1)
> \include "typography-demo.ly"
> \version "2.11.16"
> #(define outname (ly:parser-output-name parser))
> #(l
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
Wow. I really like this. Anyone else?
I don't.
I don't like it either, but for different reasons.
- how do identifiers work? Where do we define them? Does it make sense
for an identifier to be bound up in the "File" or "Book" or "Staff"
con
ight look a little weird if you needed a Book for
MIDI output...
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Trevor Baca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2/8/2007 12:20 PM
To: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Cc: Kress, Stephen; lilypond-devel
Subject: Re: Reorganizing the contents of the \paper block
On
On 2/8/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[-user trimmed]
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Wow. I really like this. Anyone else?
I don't.
* Have a look at input/regression/backend-svg.ly
How do I do this with a tightly defined structure?
%%% BEGIN %%%
\new File \with {
\sourcefilena
[-user trimmed]
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Wow. I really like this. Anyone else?
I don't.
* Have a look at input/regression/backend-svg.ly
How do I do this with a tightly defined structure?
* You're mixing up the Music type (which has length and
pitch) with various others which don't. Looks
On 2/8/07, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/8/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>
> > Note that this is not a zero-code proposal, however: the idea of
> > collapsing \paper and \layout is a pretty serious structural change,
> > even though I think
On 2/8/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Note that this is not a zero-code proposal, however: the idea of
> collapsing \paper and \layout is a pretty serious structural change,
> even though I think it makes extremely good sense.
It's actually not. Inside t
On 2/8/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>>
>> > Right now both list 1 and list 2 will just be put together into the
>> > outside-of-score (\paper) bucket.
>> >
>> > But it seems
On 2/8/07, Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> On a related note, I think it would be cleaner to _always_ require users to put in the
necessary scope levels, i.e. don't have lilypond put the \book block in by default. It
would make it a bit harder to get start
Would it be possible to implement something like Perl's use strict
pragma? That would let people who need to do something quick-and-easy
do so, while encouraging more formal structure in general.
Geoff
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gn
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
On a related note, I think it would be cleaner to _always_ require users to put in the
necessary scope levels, i.e. don't have lilypond put the \book block in by default. It
would make it a bit harder to get started, but would make it much easier to move from the
"be
> -Original Message-
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If I comment out the score-level indent, then the book-level indent
> > will take over. If I comment out both the score-level and
> book-level
> > indents, then the top-level indent will take over.
>
> No, t
Mats Bengtsson escreveu:
>
> 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
>
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Note that this is not a zero-code proposal, however: the idea of
> collapsing \paper and \layout is a pretty serious structural change,
> even though I think it makes extremely good sense.
It's actually not. Inside the code it's already implemented like that.
The differenc
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>>
>> > Right now both list 1 and list 2 will just be put together into the
>> > outside-of-score (\paper) bucket.
>> >
>> > But it seems that may list 1 is really concerned with the *the layout
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> (If I'm getting something factually incorrect, somebody please correct me.)
No, this is correct, albeit a bit more wordy than how I would phrase it. :-)
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music N
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 someho
Trevor Bača wrote:
\layout has another function, although it may be a special case of one
of its other uses. If a \score block contains a \midi block the
\layout block is needed if PDF output is also desired.
Ah right. I remember that coming up a while back.
OK, duly noted. If there's supp
On 2/7/07, Cameron Horsburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Sidenote: if this proposal to collapse \paper and \alyout does make
> sense, then we'll have to decide what to do with the fact that there's
> a second, equally important use for \layout blocks, which is the
> overriding of context attri
> [Sidenote: if this proposal to collapse \paper and \alyout does make
> sense, then we'll have to decide what to do with the fact that there's
> a second, equally important use for \layout blocks, which is the
> overriding of context attributes ... which is a wholly separate thing
> from making t
On 2/7/07, Bryan Stanbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rogers wrote:
> The correct answer is (I believe) exactly as you proposed earlier. Talking
about Lilypond's internal logic is IMHO counterproductive. In fact, internally, I
suspect Lilypond should stay the same - it just needs to all
On 2/7/07, Juergen Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, all!
What about unifying "\paper" and "\layout" into a single "\layout"
directive, such that in the input language there is no syntactical
difference any more between \paper and \layout block? (Of course, in the
implementation, the differ
On 2/7/07, David Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:45:26 -0600, Trevor Bača wrote:
> And now I see why Han-Wen keeps inviting a name change of the \paper
> and \layout buckets (while implicitly discouraging the moving around
> of settings between those two buckets): the buck
David Rogers wrote:
The correct answer is (I believe) exactly as you proposed earlier. Talking
about Lilypond's internal logic is IMHO counterproductive. In fact, internally,
I suspect Lilypond should stay the same - it just needs to allow the user to
use it effectively by making (or even jus
Hi, all!
What about unifying "\paper" and "\layout" into a single "\layout"
directive, such that in the input language there is no syntactical
difference any more between \paper and \layout block? (Of course, in the
implementation, the different scopes still could be kept.) Then the place
w
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Right now both list 1 and list 2 will just be put together into the
> outside-of-score (\paper) bucket.
>
> But it seems that may list 1 is really concerned with the *the layout
> of music on the page* whereas list 2
My suggestion:
\paper {}
paper-width
paper-height
top-margin
bottom-margin
left-margin
\page-layout{}
first-page-number
print-first-page-number
print-page-number
auto-first-page-number
head-separation
foot-separation
printallheaders
after-title-space
befo
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Right now both list 1 and list 2 will just be put together into the
> outside-of-score (\paper) bucket.
>
> But it seems that may list 1 is really concerned with the *the layout
> of music on the page* whereas list 2
David Rogers wrote:
I propose:
\papersize (for only the actual paper-related items)
\systemlayout (for Trevor's list 1)
\headerlayout (for Trevor's list 2)
I second this proposal, although they should probably be
\paperSize
\systemLayout
\headerLayout
or
\paper-size
\system-layout
\header-lay
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> I'm used to thinking of ragged-right as a "layout setting". But,
> apparently, ragged-right can go in either the (top-level) \paper or
> (top-level) \layout block equally. Why is this allowed? Is there some
> benefit?
As I said, the scoping is nested at runtime: if a looku
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Question for anyone who can answer: are there *any* settings that
> *can* go in a score-level \layout block but *can not* go in the
> top-level \paper block?
No, not that I know.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software D
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> Right now both list 1 and list 2 will just be put together into the
> outside-of-score (\paper) bucket.
>
> But it seems that may list 1 is really concerned with the *the layout
> of music on the page* whereas list 2 is concerned with *adding headers
> and footers outside
On 2/7/07, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Question for anyone who can answer: are there *any* settings that
*can* go in a score-level \layout block but *can not* go in the
top-level \paper block?
Second question: why do the top-level
\layout { ragged-right = ##t }
and
\paper { ragg
On 2/7/07, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trevor Bača escreveu:
> > On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Trevor Bača escreveu:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't ask except for the fact that I've now been laying ou
---Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of Trevor Baca
Sent: Wed 2/7/2007 12:47 PM
To: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Cc: lilypond-devel; lilypond-user
Subject: Re: Reorganizing the contents of the \paper block
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trevor Baca esc
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>>
>> >
>> > I wouldn't ask except for the fact that I've now been laying out score
>> > very successfully with lily for going on two year
Trevor Bača escreveu:
> On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trevor Bača escreveu:
>>
>> >
>> > I wouldn't ask except for the fact that I've now been laying out score
>> > very successfully with lily for going on two years and I still have to
>> > stop and ask myself "Hmm ... I
On 2/7/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Bača escreveu:
>
> I wouldn't ask except for the fact that I've now been laying out score
> very successfully with lily for going on two years and I still have to
> stop and ask myself "Hmm ... I'm wanting to pad systems on the page s
Trevor Bača escreveu:
>
> I wouldn't ask except for the fact that I've now been laying out score
> very successfully with lily for going on two years and I still have to
> stop and ask myself "Hmm ... I'm wanting to pad systems on the page so
> that they lay out more loosely. So that concerns lay
Hi,
Hopefully this won't be rocking the boat too much, but I'd like to
open a small discussion about reorganizing the contents of the \paper
block.
Section 11.1.2 "Page formatting" lists 27 \paper settings:
first-page-number
print-first-page-number
print-page-number
pape
48 matches
Mail list logo
