On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:16:46 +0100 "Neil Puttock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:18:06 +0100 > > "Neil Puttock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not certain about that. Is there any reason *not* to use the > > \layout settings which avoid ugly output? If text lines would fit > > within the page anyway, then the settings only add half a second to > > the compile time; if the output *would* look bad, then those > > settings solve that problem. > > Why add redundant \layout settings? None of the other snippets has > text spilling into the margins. Well, those redundant \layout settings make lilypond produce the best possible notation. As a general rule, we want the headwords to look as good as possible. If we could use a predef for these, I'd totally propose a \bestNotation or \qualityRendering or something like that. And possibly a \fastRendering. But when I asked about this a while ago, nobody had any other suggestions for specific tweaks to alter the quality-vs-speed of rending, so I dropped the idea. I suppose that there's nothing wrong with customizing specific \layout settings for each headword, so I guess I'll go along with removing these \layout settings. > > Ok, could you update all the snippets to use the new \paper > > settings? > > Will do, though I don't plan on removing ragged-right = ##t for the > remaining items. All right, I'll do it after you revert the time signature stuff. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
