David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > "Keith OHara" <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:14:11 -0700, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 2014/08/31 06:58:47, Keith wrote: >>> >>> https://codereview.appspot.com/138950043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/vocal.itely#newcode2646 >>>> \set instrumentCueName = "Flute" >>>> This is the *other* use of instrumentSwitch, >>>> which I'll probably put back to a <>^\markup >>> >>> I think one of the points of the instrument switches was that you could >>> do as many as you liked in a row (namely, attaching the instrument >>> switch to the start of any music variable to be used for a particular >>> instrument) without triggering extraneous switch messages. >>> >>> <>^\markup would seem to defeat that part of the original design. While >>> we don't need the instrumentSwitch command as such, the respective >>> engravers weeding out duplication still serve a purpose. >> >> This particular engraver seems to try, but fails, to suppress repeated >> identical settings. (Maybe incorrect use of Scheme's eq? to compare >> the strings?) > > Not really incorrect since strings _do_ have identity and the string > would be coming from the same instrument definition.
Aaaaand ptooey. When we put the equivalent of the instrument definition into a music variable and recall that music variable with the ilk of \kaspar, the invocation of \kaspar will copy the music including the string contained in \set ...Name = "..." recursively. So when moving instrument definitions to music variables, we definitely don't want to compare using eq? any more. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
