Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2017-08-02 18:27 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2017-08-02 15:46 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>>>
>>>> #(ly:output-def-set-variable! (ly:book-paper bkII) 'ragged-right #f)
>>>
>>> This works fine, but only if the bookpart already has \paper
>>
>> So use the LilyPond syntax variant instead?
>>
>> What are you currently after? Getting some task done or working out
>> where LilyPond's Scheme interfaces are having holes and getting them
>> filled?
>>
>> Of course approaches differ then.
>
> This thread was triggered by a request in the german forum
> https://lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,105.msg686.html
> While I think there is a working sollution over there, I now try to
> explore whether LilyPond could be improved with regard to this topic.
>
> I can fill an empty bookpart with a header using ly:book-set-header!
> I can fill an empty bookpart with scores using ly:book-add-score!
> But obviously there's no possibility to get a paper into an empty
> bookpart. Otherwise the answer would have been dropped hours ago.
>
> What's needed to have/get/code such a function?
I think that part of the problem is that looking at the functions in
lily/book-scheme.cc
it seems like bookparts were never intended to have paper blocks. Now
after actually checking it would appear that at least several bookparts
cannot appear on the same page: so at least the paper dimensions likely
don't clash.
So what is supposed to be the actual difference between bookparts and
books?
I actually don't know how to tell, and it shows by the parser not
knowing how to know that
\xxx
is not a book when xxx has been defined as \bookpart { \paper {...} ...}.
I really don't have an idea what the distinction is supposed to be about.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
