Comment #3 on issue 2076 by [email protected]: Doc: improve NR 1.6.3
Instrument names (better to use \with )
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2076
David,
Thanks, while the first two examples in this specific section are trivial
to change the next two are not:
--snip--
<<
\new Staff {
\set Staff.instrumentName = #"Flute"
f2 g4 f
}
\new Staff {
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup \center-column {
Clarinet
\line { "in B" \smaller \flat }
}
c4 b c2
}
--snip--
complains if you just change it to
<<
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = #"Flute"
f2 g4 f
}
etc...
because of the 'relative' I think - from the error I get when trying to
compile it.
So in this case should we include a \layout { } in the @lilypond example
and put the context changes in there?
Also with the next but one example:
--snip--
\set Staff.instrumentName = #"First"
\set Staff.shortInstrumentName = #"one"
c1 c c c \break
c1 c c c \break
\set Staff.instrumentName = #"Second"
\set Staff.shortInstrumentName = #"two"
c1 c c c \break
c1 c c c \break
--snip-
Again it would seem excessive to change this to:
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = #"First"
shortInstrumentName = #"one"
}
c1 c c c \break
c1 c c c \break
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = #"second"
shortInstrumentName = #"two"
}
c1 c c c \break
c1 c c c \break
again, while the example is not that 'pretty' is there a better way to do
this?
James
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
