Le 13/12/2022 à 10:55, Xavier Scheuer a écrit :
Hello,While replying to a query on the French-speaking list I realized that in the latest versions of LilyPond the instrumentCueName property was considered deprecated (as well as the engraver "Instrument_switch_engraver", the grob "InstrumentSwitch" and the music functions instrumentSwitch and addInstrumentDefinition). Commit 5df7147b5977b010179bab53c2e077d559ec8ed7 This is a property that I commonly use (see typical example of my use below) and I don't understand the rationale for removing it. Furthermore I find promoting simple "catch-all" TextScripts (attached to an empty chord, cf. NR 1.6.3) to indicate the instrument cue name a bad practice when you can have a dedicated property and grob. With a dedicated object it is cleaner, "modular" and future-proof: if you want to adapt the size or font of all the instrument cue names you just have to modify the properties of this object. With the approach promoted now you have to search for all occurrences where you have induced the instrument cue name with a TextScript and modify them. So I agree that the old approach wasn't perfect (especially the mix of instrument cue name and instrument switch, two uses for one object/property/engraver), but in this case I'd rather have two properties (instrumentCueName and instrumentSwitchName), objects (InstrumentCueName and InstrumentSwitch) and engravers ("Instrument_cue_name_engraver" and "Instrument_switch_engraver"), than remove everything!
Werner's commit merely documented a deprecation that had been going on for much longer. The rationale is given here: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/4078#note_339812107 and I found this thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-10/msg00113.html which shows pretty much the same story as what is happening now, but 11 years ago. I totally agree that the \instrumentSwitch and \addInstrumentDefinition functions are useless. Just use variables. (Contrary to what its name suggests, \instrumentSwitch isn't directly related to Instrument_switch_engraver.) Now, is the InstrumentSwitch grob useful? I don't know. On the one hand, modern LilyPond provides more semantic grobs printing text, like SectionLabel. On the other hand, SectionLabel is special because it interacts well with \repeat segno. InstrumentSwitch looks like it does nothing special at all compared to TextScript or TextMark. There's no problem keeping the code future-proof with generic grobs: define cueName = #(define-music-function (text) (markup?) #{ <>^\text #}) or cueName = \tweak non-musical ##f \textMark \etc with whatever tweaks you want, and later change the definition if needed. So, I don't see a lot of advantage to this grob. The message https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-10/msg00148.html sounds like not recommending the use of instrumentCueName is a good thing. We could provide \instrumentSwitchText "abc" to create an InstrumentSwitch, but it's not clear to me that it would add value over the solutions above. Best, Jean
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
