Hello Hans,
On 07.02.2012 20:42, Hans Aikema wrote:
On 6-2-2012 12:19, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
Hello Joe,
I sometimes use this:
--snip--
#(set! paper-alist (cons '("wide" . (cons (* 15 cm) (* 3 cm)))
paper-alist))
\paper {
#(set-paper-size "wide")
}
\score {
\relative c'' {
bes4 a c b
}
}
--snip--
\paper {
paper-width = 15\cm
paper-height = 3\cm
}
Also does the job AFAIK and seems more intuitive for the common user I
would say.
Any idea whether using paper-width/paper-heigt settings instead of
defining a new paper size has (unwanted) implications on other parts
of the lay-out that can be avoided by using the paper-alist?
yes it does the job of setting width and height, but I understand the
docs (
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/paper-size-and-automatic-scaling#setting-paper-size
) that not all automatic scaling and adjusting is done.
This might not be a problem, but one should know about it.
If you try this small snippet:
--snip--
#(set! paper-alist (cons '("logo" . (cons (* 10 cm) (* 5 cm))) paper-alist))
% uncomment either set-paper-size or paper-width/-height
\paper {
% setting paper size
%#(set-paper-size "logo")
% setting paper-width and -height
%paper-width = 10\cm
%paper-height = 5\cm
}
\relative c' {
c4 e g b
}
--snip--
you can reproduce the difference.
This is the reason, I prefer the "schemish" solution.
Regards,
Jan-Peter
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
