On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham Percival wrote Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:00 AM >> It was not deliberate to change the docs lnie-width. > > I that case I'd like to change it back.
No argument here. :) > It appears to be a side effect of some other change to lilypond-book, > which I suspect now picks up 'smallbook' rather than 'A4' for ly > fragments. > > I'll try to track it down when I have a bit > more time to do a binary search, unless someone > else has a idea what might have caused this. It might have been me moving @afourpaper into a shared macro for texinfo. That happened within the past two weeks. Then again, AFAIK the change could have happened months ago with nobody noticing. > In the meantime I'll add line-width to the @lilypond command for the > broken fragment in LM 5.4.3 with a comment. No; please don't. It doesn't matter if it looks bad in a -devel release, and this will force us to fix the underlying issue. You could add an item to the tracker if you're concerned about this getting lost. Cheers, - Graham PS my emails directly to you are getting rejected again. It's just possible it's something on my end, though. In a few days I should have my elec.gla.ac.uk account, and then we can communicate via a reliable channel while we investigate it. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
