Hi, Carrick:
Well, that worked just great. Thanks a lot.
My pleasure!
I never would have guessed how the size increment divisions worked without your help, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.
It is counter-intuitive if you think of them literally as "divisions" -- in that case, it would be intuitive that 0 is zero (invisible), 1 (= 100%) is "full-size", and numbers in between are smaller than normal but bigger than invisible (e.g., 0.5 = 50% of normal size).
However, if you think of 1 as "full-size" and each number, positive or negative, as ONE STEP AWAY FROM NORMAL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SIGN (+1 = one step bigger, -1 = one step smaller), then this system suddenly "becomes intuitive". ;-)
Best wishes, Kieren. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user