Re: Adds incipit section to NR (issue 108270043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2014/08/20 08:17:01, email_philholmes.net wrote:
> >> ly/property-init.ly:303: ragged-last = ##f
> >> wouldn't we also want system-count = 1 here?
> >>
> >> https://codereview.appspot.com/108270043/
> >
> > Possibly. I'd be happy to add that prior to push.
> >
> > --
> > Phil Holmes


> Actually, I've just checked.  System-count has no effect: the incipit
is
> always a single line.

Take the following example:

\layout {
  indent = 3\cm
}

\new Staff \with {
  instrumentName = "Tenor"
}
{
  \incipit \relative c' { \time 6/1 \partial 1*2 e1 d \bar "|" c d e d c
e }
  \relative c' { \time 6/8 \partial 4 e8( d) c( d e d c e) | d2. }
}

Without the system-count restriction, its reaction to the small indent
is quite out of line.

This example shows some more problems: Outcommenting the assignment to
indent leads to a strange error message.  Outcommenting the assignment
to instrumentName lets the incipit disappear completely.

Now taking your last reply into account

> Don't agree at all.  I'd accept it if you proposed an alternative that

> left aligned the instrument name as a possible option, but as it is, I

> believe right alignment is the correct option here.  It should require
an
> override to change that.  Don't accept this change should delay
pushing
> this patch.

I think that our basic disagreement here has more or less grown over the
history of this patch which makes it somewhat sad that nobody else
chimed in.

I think it boils down to a mismatch between your original intent
reflected in the patch title "Adds incipit section to NR" and the course
I am trying to take it.  To me it looks like you want a section in the
NR (rather than some snippet) that produces an incipit like the one you
can see in your scores.  And it would appear that everything which
happened in between is a distraction and an annoyance to you since it
does not actually change the image that appears while causing additional
work.

However, we are changing from what was "just a snippet" into
functionality built into LilyPond.  In a snippet, hardwiring some
instrument alignment for the outcome desired for a particular graphic is
quite fine: the user who wants a different alignment can just change the
snippet code.  But when we are creating built-in functionality for
LilyPond, we don't want decisions hardwired into code that is no longer
user-maintained.  We also don't want surprising changes of defaults.
The last proposals of mine were for
a) changing the normal instrumentName placement to the default placement
without incipit
b) giving the \incipit command the facility to conveniently override
such defaults with a context modification
The intended graphic end result after all this effort would indeed be
exactly the same result you already have, but with the alignment choices
differing from the default explicitly specified by the code.

Now obviously one can commit and document one interface now and fix
stuff up afterwards.  But then that kind of documentation patchwork is
done by different authors and checked in and translated at different
times.

I would prefer to get stuff as correct and complete at the first go as
we can manage.  Of course, once you throw up your hands in disgust, the
work we can hope to get achieved from one author in one go is over.  And
naturally, there is not much of a point to exhaust your enthusiasm for
LilyPond over a single issue.  I'd still be glad if we could get the
code and documentation at least to a state where we don't need to touch
the translatable part in the NR (example use and description) any more
for a large variation of different applications, even if it will fall to
my lot to do further work on the \incipit definition in property-init.ly
itself in order to have it work in more situations.


https://codereview.appspot.com/108270043/