Hello,
On 18/10/2010 23:40, Keith E OHara wrote:
On mailing list lilypond-user, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:40 AM
I no longer see any reason to use instrumentCueName for the labels
that identify the instrument playing cue notes.
OK. I'll see what you suggest.
I suggest (diff attached) removing the part about instrumentCueName in
favor of a fuller example for \killCues. The manual teaches markup
elsewhere; the challenge with cue-note labels is to let the label appear
with the cue notes in parts, but not in the score.
bassoon = \relative c {
\clef bass
R1
\tag #'part {
\clef treble
s1*0^\markup { \tiny "flute" }
}
\cueDuring #"flute" #UP { R1 }
\tag #'part \clef bass
g4. b8 d2
%{%}>
Sorry for jumping in here, I have read the thread prior to this and
while I agree the Cue Notes section is sketchy, I am not sure how this
is an improvement and this seems more complicated.
What are we achieving here?
Granted I can now 'format' my markup (or rather I could never see how to
change the size or font-type of the instrument name) but other than
that, having to incorporate a spacer and a \tag seems a step backwards
and some might go as far as to say a 'hack' to not using what we did before.
I am not saying this is not valid but we don't tend to document
workarounds or hacks, these are snippets. If this is to show a
'different' or 'another' way of doing things then fair enough but I'm
not convinced there is enough description in this case at least in the
example and nor do I know the ramifications of explicitly setting markup
'outside' of the cue notes section (vs incorporating it within) for the
rest of a score.
I hope that makes sense. At the moment I am just seeing this change for
change's sake.
james
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
