On 8/13/09 11:21 AM, "Michael Käppler" <xmichae...@web.de> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>>> Am I right you suggest to modify the output-def just once but permanent?
>>>
>>
>> I meant to change the paper-def so that it would be consistent for the rest
>> of the processing (it would eliminate multiple warnings).
>>
> Okay. Anyway, I would prefer to not touch the original values. Instead
> we could introduce a new variable in the output-def, say
> "consistency-checked", set it to true after checking it the first time
> and don't touch it any more during processing.
> That would also be a good way to give the user control about whether his
> values are checked or not. If you set it to true in \paper {}, no
> checking will be done and no warnings printed.
> What do you say?
I don't know enough about this part of the LilyPond code to have a good idea
about the proper internals.
However, it would seem to me to be very un-LilyPond-ish to have a variable
consistencyChecked that it set to true by the program but is also accessible
to the user.
Rather, it would seem to me that there should be a property setting
checkMarginConsistency that would default to #t, but could be set #f. And
part of the check could be to set checkMarginConsistency to #f to prevent
further checks.
I realize this is only a small difference, but I think it's an important
one. LilyPond settings are based on what the user wants the program to do,
not based on what the program has already accomplished.
HTH,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
