On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Just wondering: wouldn't it me more consistent to rename "\line" into
> > "\row"? Then we have "\column" and "\row" as a complementary pair of
> > commands.
> >
> > Since there is currently a "word-space
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi!
>
> Just wondering: wouldn't it me more consistent to rename "\line" into
> "\row"? Then we have "\column" and "\row" as a complementary pair of
> commands.
>
> Since there is currently a "word-space" property for "\line", maybe there
> should be an according p
Hi!
Just wondering: wouldn't it me more consistent to rename "\line" into
"\row"? Then we have "\column" and "\row" as a complementary pair of
commands.
Since there is currently a "word-space" property for "\line", maybe there
should be an according property for "\row" for vertical spacing.
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wouldn't mind of demanding that users write
>
> \line
>
> explicitly inside \column to go to horizontal mode again, ie.
>
> \markup { \column { a b \bold { c d } e f }
>
> =>
>
> \markup { \column { a b \bold c \bold d e f } }
>
> I think this
I wouldn't mind of demanding that users write
\line
explicitly inside \column to go to horizontal mode again, ie.
\markup { \column { a b \bold { c d } e f }
=>
\markup { \column { a b \bold c \bold d e f } }
I think this is more consistent. Of course, \markup should implicitly
enclose
