Trevor Bača wrote: [... a very long and equally excellent description concerning the scope of layout settings ...]
> In the end I think Han-Wen is right that the naming of \layout and > \paper is unfortunate. All the settings in \layout and \paper are very > clearly "page layout" settings, which clashes verbally with both the > reserved words "\layout" and "\paper". Maybe the following two slight > changes would help: > > 1. Rename \layout and \paper to \score-layout and \book-layout, > respectively. This will force "single-score" users to be aware that > there's this \book construct that they never explicitly use. BUT it > has the tremendous improvement of explaining why some page layout > settings live in one place and not the other. > > 2. Allow no \book-layout settings in a \score-layout block at all (as > they are ineffectual anyway). This will make clear that there *is* a > distinction between the two blocks, which is hidden now by the silent > pass-overs. > > 3. Keep the allowable (scoped) positions of the newly renamed > \score-layout and \book-layout exactly the same as they are now. That > is, \score-layout will be able to live at any of three levels of scope > -- inside a single score (affecting only that score), or inside a book > (providing defaults for all scores living inside that book), or at > toplevel (providing defaults for all scores living inside all books > living inside that inputfile). Likewise, \book-layout would be able to > live at any of two levels of scope -- inside a book (affecting just > that one book), or at toplevel (providing defaults for all books > living inside that inputfile). This sounds like a great and truly helpful proposal. However, when I was casually following the recent discussion about renaming the paper block (being even much more ignorant about the issue than you were when starting it) I thought the same about each and every one of the successively refined proposals you made in that thread. ;) So I better wait for the people with true insight to respond. But if it turns out to be accepted by the developers then I strongly support it. (BTW, the same is true of your "comment to the gurus" made earlier in your mail). Thanks again. You live and learn. Max _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user