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

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

>> Unless incipit-width is too small to accommodate the incipit in the
>> first place, the amount of space available for the instrument name is
>> \indent-\incipit-width.  Even in that case, I don't see that the natural
>> or best placement of the instrument name in the remaining space would be
>> at the right of the remaining space.
>>
>> -- 
>> David Kastrup
>
> And this is the nub of the discussion.  There's nothing actually
> _wrong_ with my patch: it's just you don't like how it looks.

Again, I have a hard time viewing this as anything than a strawman by
now since I have repeated my argument more than half a dozen times
already.  Yet you _insist_ on misrepresenting it.

The question is not what looks better.  The problem is that there is
_no_ reason to _gratuitiously_ introduce a _different_ default for a
command like incipit when there is _no_ _reason_ _whatsoever_ that the
introduction of an incipit should _change_ the best default.

I have asked pretty much _every_ _single_ mail: what do you think makes
the situation _with_ an incipit _different_ from the situation without
an incipit with regard to formatting of the instrument name?

I would protest _just_ the same if you overrode the default with
#CENTER.  We _don't_ want to maintain a separate default _with_ and
_without_ incipits.

If you consider right alignment correct, it will be correct without
incipits as well.  And there is nothing wrong with proposing to change
our current default.  But there _is_ something wrong with scattering
different defaults all over the code base.

> I very much do.  This time I've attached a centre-aligned and a
> right-aligned example, and much prefer the latter.  And if you say
> right-aligned is wrong, you should also write to Elaine Gould to
> correct her.

Does Elaine Gould state _different_ defaults for the alignment of
instrument names before an incipit and before a regular staff?

Or is this yet another straw man?

> This takes me back to my previous mail.  I'm very happy to attempt to
> correct incorrect code, etc.  However, I don't think it's good to have
> this continuing debate simply about what looks better.

Strawman.  We are not debating what looks better.  My objection has
_always_ been one that we don't want to have two different standards in
our code base without a reason.

Please point out a single mail of mine where I have made this an issue
about "what looks better".  Whether or not this unabated
misrepresentation is intentional, it is definitely quite annoying.

> You have one opinion, I have another, and it's my patch.

Your patch is supposed to include documentation.  If the \incipit patch
changes the default instrument alignment, the documentation is
incomplete without pointing out that change.

The rationale of this difference cannot be expected to be obvious to
other documentation writers or users, so please describe it in your
documentation of the usage of the \incipit music function.

-- 
David Kastrup