On 22 November 2010 17:35, Reinhold Kainhofer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm currently trying to make cue notes much better supported in LilyPond.
That's really great, thanks! > In particular, it's not as simple as quoting the notes in a CueVoice. It's a pity. I'd love if it was that simple (see below)! > There might be even more possible options, but these are really needed in my > scores. Since we have 3 different options, which might or might not be needed > in a cued part, we have 8 different combinations of necessary option settings. > > If we follow the example of \transposedCueDuring, that will lead to 8 > different *cueDuring* function, which I don't think is what we want (see also > naming problems, http://codereview.appspot.com/2726043 ). > > So, basically we then need a way to pass various options to the cueDuring > command, but I don't know how to properly design this in proper lilypond > syntax. > In LaTeX, I would use something like > \cueDuring[clef="treble_8",cueName="Vl.1"]{...} % Uses a cue clef > \cueDuring[cueName="Vl.1"]{...} % No cue clef, only instrument name > \cueDuring{...} % no cue clef, instrument name or transposition > > I don't think we have anything like this in lilypond currently. > > Do you have any idea how to properly add options for the cueDuring command in > LilyPond??? Well, I'm not a programmer, but... Can't we consider a \cueDuring that would basically work like << { R1 } % continuation of "main" voice: argument of \cueDuring \context CueVoice = "fluteCue" \with { % voice name = "partname"+Cue cueInstrumentName = "Quoted instrument name" % other CueVoice options, like: print-quoted-instrument-clef = ##t % add the proper clef print-instrument-name-every-time = ##t % to print cueInstrumentName % at each \cueDuring transpose = #-1 % value same as \ottava } { % content of the quoted voice (like now) % \quoteDuring #"flute" { s1 } ?? } >> the corresponding \cueDuring command would be \cueDuring #"flute" \with { % "partname" = flute % my options above } { R1 } % this is the argument that would be placed in the % continuation of "main" voice What's wrong with this approach? Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
