|
From: | James |
Subject: | Re: anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs? |
Date: | Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:33:25 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 |
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 AMI 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |