Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I don't have any solution this, other than disallowing unquoted
> > strings...
>
> Me neither. If enough people press me to do this, I might. However, I
> don't see the immediate benefits. If you want you can make a personal
> habit of always quoting strings. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Well, at least it hides it.
> > Another thing that I don't understand att all is the context/translate
> > stuff. It's pretty hard to realize what contexts LilyPond will
> > automatically insert in my score. If I have a \context StaffGroup <
> > \context Void < ... > >, it will add a Staff etc. And somewhere it
> > seems to add an OrchestralScore or something also.
>
> It is documented in the user manual, in the section "Notation
> Contexts"; could you be more precise what part of the explanation you
> don't understand?
I guess it boils down to that I still haven't managed to build the
documentation.... Currently I've come so far as to having pnmcrop
core dump on me.
> > \translate {
> > \StaffContext
> > \consists "Bar_engraver"
> > \property ...
> > }
> >
> > Wouldn't something along the lines of the following be more natural?
> > I see no point of adding a \FooContext for each context Foo, when the
> > string Foo is perfectly valid as a context identifier. Or is there
> > something I don't see?
>
> Yes, you overlook a (minor) issue: the initial definition of Staff
> still has to be given using \translator. Adding \modifycontext is not
> orthogonal: more code is added, but we don't get any new functionalty;
> and you still have to resort to \translator when you want a radically
> new context definition.
Why would it have to be given using \translator? If we change the
name of \changecontext (maybe to \translator), but still drop the
\StaffContext and use Staff instead, I'd still be happier.
I can't say I really understand contexts. Is it possible to define
your own contexts? And is there any difference between your own
contexts and the built-in (and automatic) ones?
--
David K�gedal
