----- Original Message -----
From: <d...@gnu.org>
To: <philehol...@googlemail.com>; <tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com>;
<em...@philholmes.net>; <m...@philholmes.net>; <benko....@gmail.com>
Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Adds incipit section to NR (issue 108270043 by
philehol...@googlemail.com)
https://codereview.appspot.com/108270043/diff/40001/ly/property-init.ly#newcode293
> ly/property-init.ly:293: \once \override
> Staff.InstrumentName.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
> I don't think we should prescribe
Staff.InstrumentName.self-alignment-X
> here. That is a user preference. While it would be nice to glean
that
> information from the outer Staff.InstrumentName.self-alignment-X,
that's
> likely tricky to do while at the same time overriding the
> Staff.InstrumentName settings.
>
> So I'd rather suggest the syntax
> \incipit \with { \override InstrumentName.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
}
> {...}
Don't agree at all. I'd accept it if you proposed an alternative that
left
aligned the instrument name as a possible option,
The optional context mod obviously allows choosing any default that can
be explicitly overridden by the user.
but as it is, I believe
right alignment is the correct option here.
Why would the correct default alignment for an instrument name before an
incipit be explicitly different from the correct default alignment for
an instrument name before an incipit-less staff?
Don't accept this change should delay pushing this patch.
So what is the reasoning behind changing the default instrument
placement before an incipit?
https://codereview.appspot.com/108270043/
Because, after a considerable amount of experimentation to find the optimum
design, I concluded that using a right-aligned instrument name and incipit
provided the best-looking output with the least adjustment required by the
user. I have not done the same amount of experimentation and evaluation
with the default instrument name: partly because that still suffers badly
from the effects of Issue 766.
I do feel that this patch is suffering from a rather nit-picking approach.
It is undoubtedly an enormous improvement over the current availability and
documentation for incipits, which currently says "Incipits. TBC". It
could, no doubt, be improved by other contributors adding options and
features. But I believe it is, in its current state, good _enough_ to go.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
