Hey all,
Currently, the documentation says:
line-width
The length of the systems. Default is paper-width minus 20mm.
Maybe we can just update the documentation to say something like this:
line-width
The length of the systems. Default is 20mm less than the width implied by
paper
The GUB release 2.11.57 for Windows seems to have a problem on Vista SP1.
When started from the command line it returns immediately, even when given
no arguments - 2.11.56 is fine - it gives brief help information when given
no arguments. When started from another application like lilypondbook
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Hey all, not sure if this is really a bug.
> [...]
> Regardless, the docs imply that changing paper-width changes line-width, and
> it just doesn't seem so. I don't know enough to know if this is a bug, but
> I'm happy to report my confusion to someone that might.
I guess thi
Am 05.09.2008 um 09:34 schrieb Mark Polesky:
Hey all, not sure if this is really a bug.
The 2.11 documentation (Notation Reference 4.1.2 Page formatting)
says:
paper-width
The width of the page. The default is taken from the current
paper size.
line-width
The length of the syste
Mark Polesky wrote:
Hey all, not sure if this is really a bug.
The 2.11 documentation (Notation Reference 4.1.2 Page formatting) says:
paper-width
The width of the page. The default is taken from the current paper size.
line-width
The length of the systems. Default is paper-width
Hey all, not sure if this is really a bug.
The 2.11 documentation (Notation Reference 4.1.2 Page formatting) says:
paper-width
The width of the page. The default is taken from the current paper size.
line-width
The length of the systems. Default is paper-width minus 20mm.
So should s
Patrick,
I think you might be right.
> ... So instead of the bottom-margin being 6 millimeters, it is 6
> staff-spaces. This would explain the scaling factor you are seeing.
The margins look right if I put #(set-global-staff-size 12) in the file.
Of course, this doesn't solve the problem, but it
