Thanks for your encouragement to use 2.19. Having this answer I'm ready to go for it :-)
Am 04.05.2019 um 16:30 schrieb Urs Liska: > Hello Steff, > > Am 04.05.19 um 15:48 schrieb [email protected]: >> Hello everybody >> >> I'm working with Lilypond for several months now, and my experiments get >> more and more realistic and interesting ;-) > > > Great! Welcome to LilyPond. > > >> So I will follow up with >> specific questions soon and hope someone may be able to give me advice. >> >> As I'm new to this list, I would like to ask how I should handle the >> following observation: >> >> Let's start with the following code fragment: >> >> {code} >> \version "2.18.2" >> >> \book { >> \paper { >> #(set-paper-size "a5" 'landscape) >> } >> \score { >> \new Staff >> << >> { \relative c'{ c d e f}} >> >> >> \layout { >> } >> } >> } >> {code} >> >> When I render this code with Lilypond v2.18.2, the PDF appears in >> landscape view as expected - be it in Adobe Reader or in the Frescobaldi >> score view. >> >> When I render this code with Lilypnd v2.19.83, the PDF is rendered in >> portrait orientation (and displayed so in the viewers mentionned). >> >> When I change the version hint in the code to >> {code} >> \version "2.19.83" >> {code} >> and render the code with Lilypond v2.19.83, the PDF is rendered in >> portrait orientation. >> >> *Summary* >> File version hint Lilypond version PDF orientation >> 2.18.2 2.18.2 landscape >> 2.18.2 2.19.83 portrait >> 2.19.83 2.19.83 portrait >> >> Is this a bug? Where to post it? Or have I missed something? > > > 1) > The \version string is not really a hint as you seem to understand it. > You should rather take it as an indication for the *minimum* version to > be use (although that is not the technical meaning of it). > You *can* tell Frescobaldi to use that information to determine which > installed version to be used for compilation (Frescobaldi will take the > LilyPond version with the next higher version number), but LilyPond > itself will only use the string to determine if the document's version > requirement is set (if your file states \version "2.19.83" and you > compile it with 2.18.2 it will produce an error message). > > 2) > What you see is an intended change that happened during the 2.19 > development cycle to remove an inconsistency in the input language. > > [but I see others have already answered that ...] > > However, for your use case it seems you'll have to decide whether to use > the 2.18 or the 2.19 version (and learn about the convert-ly tool to > update existing input files. > Generally you should really go directly for 2.19. Labelling it > "development version" is really an understatement, and the improvements > have really been significant. > > HTH > Urs > > >> >> Thanks in Advance >> Steff >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
