Re: headers, and what include doesn't do

[David Wright]

On Sat 17 Oct 2020 at 00:58:14 (+0200), Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 17/10/2020 à 00:16, Mark Stephen Mrotek a écrit :
> > I have sent all four files to you.

I looked at the files attached to <008501d6a404$d9fe8990$8dfb9cb0$@ca.rr.com>

> Regarding your files, I believe this does not invalidate the structure
> described earlier. You have a general \header, whose fields are
> used to produce the global title.

Yes, I couldn't see why this set of files¹ would be a useful pattern
as it didn't have any \score headers, only top-level ones. It also
aimed at *avoiding* movement headings whereas the OP evidently wants
them (as they talk about their "third movement's heading".

> In the included files, you put
> 
> \header {
>   opus = ##t
> }

I think you meant to type ##f.

> I'm not sure why: I thought that was the default. Did you do this to
> fix some issue? Over here, commenting out this block does not change
> the result.
> 
> At any rate, this is effectively a global definition. It would override
> any definition of `opus` in the main file, as you can see from the attached
> example folder.

By putting the opus into the main header, Mark propagates it into all
three movements because opus does not require print-all-headers=##t
to print every time. (This is the default, I presume, because so many
works have markings like opus 117 no. 1, opus 117 no. 2, etc above
each movement.)

A different way of solving this is to put the opus into the first
\score header, like "The Opus 1" in my earlier attachments. (In them,
"The Opus 0" never gets printed: it's effectively overwritten by the
\score headers, and not expressed in the top-level header.)

¹ the files are evidently a work in progress. BTW movement 3 is
missing its \score.

Cheers,
David.