Re: Vertical spacing titles and highest staff in LilyPond version 2.18.2.

[Alexander Kobel]

Hi Miroslaw,

may I ask you to use the reply function of your mail interface to answer 
mails? Similar to how you organize your Lilypond input in several 
folders, I file my mails in several places; if you do not use the reply 
function, no In-Reply-To header is inserted in your mails. So no mail 
reader on earth can detect the thread or topic, and thus I cannot easily 
access our previous conversation.

That being said, it is nice to actually receive a confirmation that our 
answers made it to you.
I acknowledge Joram's words that communication rules are different here 
and there. But I'm pretty sure that it is universal etiquette to reply 
to people that try to help, and to use the word "thanks" at times. Even 
if it is not, please get used to the fact that we expect it on this 
mailing list.
Even if there are reasons for such misunderstandings, they do hardly 
ease the consequences: you *appear* to be highly demanding, stubborn, 
and somewhat ignorant (in some of the different meanings of this word).

I am not willing to invest more time unless this changes, and the same 
holds for some others on this list.


On 2016-12-23 19:06, Mirosław Doroszewski wrote:
> Vertical spacing titles and highest staff in LilyPond version 2.18.2.
> I have received:
> "Of course they are "automatically calculated": according to the rules
> set in markup-system-spacing".
>
> 1. I was testing setting markup-system-spacing before my e-mail, and
> without any effect (print was unchanged).

In this case, I have to assume that your use of markup-system-spacing 
was incorrect. I can confirm that this variable works since it came into 
existence. In fact, changing the values in the code you posted in your 
mail from 2016-12-20 19:40 GMT immediately changes the PDF as expected, 
using 2.18.2. Please provide a minimal example where it did not work, in 
case it actually did not.

And note that not every setting that does not change anything is an 
error. E.g., in your code posted previously, changing basic-distance 
from 15 to 20 does not change anything. That's correct behaviour, even 
though it may not be the one you expect. Changing to 30 produces a 
visible change. If you are confused about that, read the documentation - 
all details for this behavior are given there.
Try extreme values to see whether you tweak the correct parameters. If 
an extreme value does not change anything, chances are that you did not 
turn the right knob.

> 2. I suppose that it was so because the setting was (is) in template,
> not in a bottom-level document.

No idea what you mean here. "Templates" (I assume you mean includes) are 
handled just like a verbatim copy of the file contents at the point 
where the \include command occurs.

> 3. The point is: some unwanted or rather none effects become when
> setting are changed in template, non in many pieces of whole project.

See above.

> 4. Every developers, users, customers advanced and "basic" know that
> many files are put in directories.
> 5. When project have many files (pieces) — why do not put them in
> directories thematically?

Yes, so?

> 6. There was 2 times that I had to change many pieces because of
> problems with software...
> 7. So I tell: not every settings works in template, which is common
> for many pieces (files). Every settings works when are put in the same
> file.

I cannot believe that, as it is not the case here. Provide a minimal 
example.

> 8. Conclusion is the same: lilypond has to be change to treat settings
> of any template file in any directory.

It does. Definitely.
If you give wrong directory names, wrong filenames, etc., Lily will not 
find the file. An error message will be issued in those cases:

I propose the following:
(1) Double-check your Lilypond output for warnings. If warnings are 
issued, fix them.
(2) Check if you want/need to use relative includes (see Notation 
Reference 3.3.1). Repeat step (1).
(3) If some "template" does not work as you expect, copy the contents at 
the place where you used the \include, verbatim. I'm sure you'll find 
that the include was not the culprit - so the problem is either in the 
position of your include, or its content.

If, and only if, after (1) to (3) you still have problems,
(4) report *minimal* examples (http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html) 
showing faulty behavior, and maybe let us know about the structure of 
your project.
Perhaps the problems your perceive can be easily solved by a different 
approach to organizing your pieces.

> 9. Supposing: lilypond users are working rather with simple pieces,
> i.e. a) 2 voices — not 4; b) 1 chord slur — not 4 slurs in chord made
> of 4 notes; c) small project with up to 50 pages etc. So they need not
> put their projects in directories.

Rest assured that there are major and non-trivial Lilypond projects. To 
mention just few large-scale works: search the net for Nicolas Sceaux, 
who engraved several operas using Lily, or Urs' et al.'s edition of 
Fried's songs that was awarded the prize for the best edition by the 
German music publisher's association in 2014 
(http://lilypondblog.org/2014/03/oskar-fried-the-big-bang/).

By the way, are you sure you need slurs in your chords and not ties?

> 10. That is why I have problems with my project, which has hundreds
> files-pieces put in up to hundred directories.

Not a problem. At least not as far as Lilypond is concerned.


HTH,
Alexander