> I personally don't bother so much about the names of the different > fields. If you want some text to appear at the place where the default > titling typesets the opus, for example, just use that field.
I think the main reason I'm reluctant to go that route is the issue of documentation, particularly when a third party is examining it. It seems to me to be far preferable (in the long run) to have the names match what's actually in the fields. Is it possible to define alternative field names (e.g., make "texttranslator" an alias for "opus" or something like that)? > On the other hand, I really like the LaTeX idea of separating contents > from layout and by redefining the titling functions in LilyPond, this > is also possible to do. I am also very much in favor of keeping the two separate. Geoff _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
