Graham Percival wrote:
On 25-Feb-06, at 3:01 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
In fact, why not simply have
\paper {
paper-size = "a4"
}
I have nothing against scheme expressions, but I don't see why the
paper size (and global staff size) need scheme. If we could define
them like normal \paper or \layout variables, we could avoid some
newbie confusion.
because setting paper-size implies setting line-width and a number of
other variables. Check out the definition of set-paper-size for details.
Yes, it does a bunch of stuff "under the hood", but a user need not be
concerned with it. I'm just wondering if we could do
// pseudocode
if ( (\paper-option)==(paper-size $1 $2) ) then
#(set-default-paper-size $1 $2)
I freely admit my lack of experience in programming, but I can't imagine
how some syntactic sugar like this would change anything substantive in
the way that lily works internally.
Hmmm; it would require a bit of rewiring. I guess that you do want to be
able to do
\paper {
size = "a4"
linewidth = 5.0\cm %% override default
}
So the defaults would have to be moved out of paper-defaults.ly, and the
scheme code needs to check that it doesn't overwrite anything.
I have absolutely no objection to requiring explicit scheme expressions
for other stuff, but IMO these two items are pretty basic.
agreed.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
