On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:33:25 -0700, James <james.l...@datacore.com> wrote:
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?
Thank you for jumping in here.
The only goal is to make the documented method for labeling cue notes be safe
to use. I challenge you to let two instruments quote each other, with
CueVoice.instrumentCueName labeling the cue notes. (Don't take me too
seriously; I'm just trying to be provocative.)
Trevor came up with a safe solution that could scale to a full score :
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-10/msg00111.html>
Reinhold's a snippet also seems scalable :
<http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=388>
having to incorporate a spacer and a \tag seems a step backwards
Somewhat backwards, yes.
But nobody could show me how to use instrumentCueName for both score and parts
without the \tag. And I already knew how to use spacers when I first wanted
cue notes; I have only now barely grasped the subtleties of the
automatically-created CueVoice, and will soon forget that the relevant grob for
instrumentCueName is instrumentSwitch.
Teach less; let users do more.
I am not saying this is not valid but we don't tend to document
workarounds or hacks, these are snippets.
Yep. The docs editors might prefer the simpler :
bassoon = \relative c {
\clef bass
R1
\cueDuring #"flute" #UP { R1 }
g4. b8 d2
}
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff \flute
\new Staff \killCues { \bassoon }
To print the name of the quoted instrument, or to change the clef before and after
the cue notes, see <http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=388>.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
