[ Sorry, attachments were to large in the first attempt - see the link
below. ]
Dear bug squad,
following the discussion "spacing/breaking issue" on -user, I'm sure
that issue 884 <http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=884>
is a regression, but not classified as such.
For verification, I [attached] created output from 2.12.3 (Ubuntu Lucid
stable) and 2.13.22 for the very snippet in the bug tracker; 2.12.3
renders two pages as expected, 2.13.22 makes it four. Check out the
files under
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-06/msg00001.html>;
they're just too big to post them on -bug.
IMHO, the earlier variant is the expected one, so it should not be a
documentation issue as mentioned in the bug report: Even _if_ you
wanted to specify a certain number of pages between \pageBreaks, you
often don't want the _same_ number between all manual breaks (which is
what you actually specify via page-count as of 2.13.x). Rather, you
want to add \pageBreak at "critical" points like the beginning of a new
section or a really good page turn for performances, and leave the rest
up to Lilypond.
Besides, page-count just implies that you specify the total number of
pages, doesn't it?
As an additional enhancement request, it'd be nice to have a "localized"
variant of page-count between \pageBreaks. E.g., I could imagine to
allow the definition of page-count either as an integer that gives the
total number of pages (expected behaviour until 2.12.x), or as a list of
integers specifying the number of pages between consecutive \pageBreaks.
If \pageBreak really divides the piece into different chunks, as Chris
suggested in the bug report, the latter might actually be easier to
implement than the first variant.
Cheers,
Alexander
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
