On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:34:05 -0700, Trevor Daniels wrote:
If no one objects soon I shall push it.
James Lowe made comments that you might not have seen yet. I see where he is coming from, but I hope my answer explained the purpose of the changes well enough.
(For future reference, please avoid trailing whitespace, and if possible save the diff or patch with unix line endings - makes life easier :)
Can do (but with extra steps that I might forget despite best intentions).
2) Two pieces of instruction were a bit vague :
[ . . . ]
"[...] when cue notes end, the name of the original instrument2 should be printed, and any other changes introduced by the cued part should be undone. This can be accomplished by using @code{\addInstrumentDefinition}"
I think we need a clearer description about using instrument definitions in relation to cued notes
I searched, but found no reason to use these features together. I merely lacked the confidence to suggest removing those sentence altogether. I *think* the source of this bit of documentation the thread, <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00278.html> which resulted, I think, in the solution <http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=388>. That solution does not, in the end, use \addInstrumentDefinition, but I am not sufficiently git-savvy to see if the docs addition can be traced to that discussion and snippet. (Maybe Reinhold he will have input if I cc: him.) -Keith _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
