Re: what do you use ragged-bottom for?

[Keith E OHara]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:42:14 -0800, Jean-Charles Malahieude <address@hidden> 
wrote:

> Le 17/11/2013 06:52, Werner LEMBERG disait :
> > [...] – and lilypond should
> > also emit the corresponding page number in the warning message.

> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 61 or 62 pages...
> Drawing systems...
> warning: cannot fit music on page: overflow is 1.280015

Good point.  I moved one similar error message to a place where I can access 
and print the current page number; I'll try to do the same for the message 
above.


On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 02:15:54 -0800, Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> wrote:

> And btw, i think that it would be good if we had separate
> stretchability and compressability properties.  For example, when i
> have a SATB choral piece and vertical spacing is cramped, the
> distances between staves should be compressed more than the distances
> between systems (because it's very important that the systems remain
> visually separate).  However, when there is a lot of vertical space,
> it's the distances between systems that should stretch more than
> distances between staves (as we don't want to have "airy" systems).
> So, system-system distances should have high stretchability but low
> compressability compared to staff-staff distances.

LilyPond does have separate stretchability and compressibility.  Between lines 
and systems on the page, compressibility is the difference between 
basic-distance and minimum-distance.


On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:04:34 -0800, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Maybe ragged-bottom=##t should continue to always under-fill pages, as it does 
> > now?
>
> It may be useful as a speed-up aid during the data-entry/checking phase in 
> longer pieces, but I don't know what the time saving would be.

The current, incompressible, ragged bottoms should save a bit of time because 
LilyPond will not spend time considering squeezing a bit more on a page, but I 
couldn't measure any difference.

I'm now proposing to keep the current behavior on all pages except the last, 
the minimum change to fix the reported bug in issue 3281.