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 argument here. :)
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'll try to track it down when I have a bit
more time to do a binary search, unless someone
else has a idea what might have caused this.
It -is- due to lilypond-book using its default
value, which is 'smallbook', but this is not due
to a change in lilypond-book itself, as very old
versions of lilypond-book (c 2008) behave the same
way, whereas all the docs on lilypond.org (June 2009)
are fine.
It might have been me moving @afourpaper into a shared macro for
texinfo.
Is lilypond-book affected by the macro expansions?
In the meantime I'll add line-width to the @lilypond command for
the
broken fragment in LM 5.4.3 with a comment.
No; please don't. It doesn't matter if it looks bad in a -devel
release, and this will force us to fix the underlying issue.
OK, I'll wait until this is resolved.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel