Re: Controlling the very first bit of "preferatory" spacing?

[Maximilian Albert]

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