"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > Simon Albrecht wrote Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:34 PM > > >> On 14.01.2016 16:20, d...@gnu.org wrote: >>> The name is rather clumsy (and it does not help that the issue report >>> talks about "\RemoveEmptyStavesFirst" while the actual patch and the >>> Rietveld review has "\RemoveEmptyStavesAll"). >>> >>> How about "\RemoveAllEmptyStaves" ? >> >> Vote taken – what do others think? > > Definitely better. With this I don't think we need \RemoveEmptyStavesFirst. > Is there a musical need to remove empty staves from only the first system?
Wrong question since LilyPond does not even touch staves without remove-empty being set. \RemoveEmptyStavesFirst would be used in context definitions to tell LilyPond "iff a user will add \RemoveEmptyStaves, this should include the first system". Since the purpose of the predefined context modifications is to lessen rather than add confusion, I'd recommend not providing this. Someone preparing this amount of prepackaged finesse should be able to use the explicit override instead. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
