On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 06:57:59AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 9/4/09 6:03 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>
> > gperc...@sapphire:~/src/lilypond/Documentation/notation$ grep
> > \\\\override editorial.itely expressive.itely pitches.itely
> > repeats.itely rhythms.itely simultaneous.itely staff.itely
> > text.itely | wc
> > 72 465 4521
>
> I think your grep is mistaken. The autobeaming stuff isn't \override, but
> \overrideAutoBeamSettings (in 2.12) and \overrideBeamSettings (in 2.13.4).
Well, those are still tweaks, right? And \\\\override matches
anything that starts "\overide".
> When GLISS comes along, I think that name will have to go. Just like you
> don't want \setFoo instead of \set Context.foo, we don't want
> \overridePropertySetting #value instead of \override property = #value.
Yes.
> But I believe that *all* tweaks have been removed from the autobeaming
> documentation.
Hmm. This could be a meaningless semantic quibble, or it could be
something that's fundamental to the docs, GLISS, and development
in general. Is a change to the autobeaming, done via
\overrideAutoBeamSettings, consititude a "tweak"? Offhand, I'd
say "yes".
Beside that point, look at NR 1.6.2. Now, Staff symbol is a
disaster, but Ossia? It would a very different doc section if we
had no tweaks in there.
(that said, this is probably a great example of a place where we
should add predefined commands... could we change:
\new Staff \with {
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
alignAboveContext = #"main"
fontSize = #-3
\override StaffSymbol #'staff-space = #(magstep -3)
\override StaffSymbol #'thickness = #(magstep -3)
firstClef = ##f
}
to
\new Staff \with {
\ossiaSize
}
? Probably not, which is why people were talking about making a
\new SmallStaff context.
There's also 1.7.1 Selecting notation font size. I think the
\set fontSize = #3 commands aren't a bad thing in this context.
Such items are very much the exception, but I think a few
exceptions are useful.
> > A simple \instrumentName or something like that would suffice.
> > We can discuss the specifics later, during GLISS. :)
>
> Good enough. My first thought was \instrumentName, but I didn't want to
> have both \instrumentName (music function) and instrumentName (which is a
> property of Staff). I assume that GLISS will spend the time necessary to
> resolve this concern.
Yeah.
> At any rate, I don't think we should be *adding* new sections with tweaks in
> the main text to NR1+2.
Hmm. In this case, I'm with Trevor -- Joseph is all fired up
about this, so let's allow him to write those docs. We might need
to change them later, but that can be done as part of GDP2.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
