Re: page-break-permission = ##f doesn't work for the final manual \pageBreak

[Federico Bruni]

2014-02-24 14:18 GMT+01:00 Paul Morris <address@hidden>:

> Federico Bruni-5 wrote
> > I'm not sure if it's really a bug. On 2.16.2 the same happens.
> > I guess that pageBreaks needs an object afterwards, otherwise it doesn't
> > make sense. You can use an empty \markup to work around the problem:
>
> That's a helpful workaround (thanks!), although you end up with an extra
> blank page that you don't really want. So I'd say the need for such a
> workaround indicates an area for improvement (if not a bug).
>
>
No, my fault: you should change the value of ragged-last-bottom:

\paper {
  ragged-last-bottom = ##f
}


> If the point of setting page-break-permission = ##f is to "insert page
> breaks at explicit \pageBreak commands and nowhere else" as the docs say...
> and yet there is an easily reproducible case where breaks are always
> inserted where there is no explicit \pageBreak, despite the presence of an
> explicit \pageBreak where the break should go, and would go if there were
> more music after it...  I'd call that a bug.
>
> I assume that fixing this would entail improving \pageBreak so it works
> even
> when there is no object following it? (i.e. when it is the last command in
> the input)
>
>
You should ask a comment from a developer, but I don't think that this
request makes sense. Also because of ragged-last-bottom, which already
fixes this case.


> If this is a "won't fix" then I'd suggest that that part of the docs should
> be edited to be more accurate, maybe to indicate this is a "known issue" or
> something like that.
>
>
> Speaking of the docs for this, the example given here:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-breaks
>
> is not so good since the output is actually the same when you comment out
> the commands that it is intended to illustrate:
>
> % \override NonMusicalPaperColumn.line-break-permission = ##f
> % \override NonMusicalPaperColumn.page-break-permission = ##f
>
> (It is a good demonstration of ragged-bottom and ragged-right, however.)
>  To
> improve it the number of measures on some of the lines and the number of
> lines per page would need to be increased so that they are large enough to
> trigger an automatic line break or page break if these commands were not
> present.
>

Could you open a new thread  for this subject? I don't have time to look at
it now..