Mark Knoop <m...@opus11.net> writes: > At 15:40 on 21 Aug 2014, Phil Holmes wrote: >>Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. > > I am inclined to agree with David. The function should not have a > different default alignment for the instrument name. It is a shame that > the instrument name alignment can't be calculated from any existing > layout settings,
"calculated" would be more or less issue 766 which is, so far, an unsolved issue for LilyPond as such. I was more thinking of "taken". Taking the alignment from the normal Staff setting is a bit tricky if we need to override it at the same time in order to place the instrument+incipit combo as an artificial (and right-aligned) InstrumentName. > but the alternative method suggested by David seems reasonable. It is probably feasible to fudge around the "existing layout settings" issue by _not_ overriding InstrumentName.self-alignment-X in the first place but rather fudging over InstrumentName.offset-X in order to get the same effect. Then one can take the unmolested InstrumentName.self-alignment-X from the outer Staff and interpret it using grob::self-aligned-on-x in the score markup instrumentName: it is much less likely that a user will try fiddling with the offset-X callback than with the self-alignment-X setting. Or one can use a technique similar to what \offset does internally. So there are possibilities for getting a "more usual" behavior where the alignment setting is siphoned off from the main Staff. Once one can agree that it is the right thing to do. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
