Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I usually define a separate identifier for each instrument like
> clarinet = \notes {...}
> and then there is no need to change to note mode in the score
> declaration itself, so I've never experienced this problem.
Me too. I discovered this when I tried to transpose the whole score,
as an experiment.
> > Another thing that I don't understand att all is the context/translate
> > stuff. It's pretty hard to realize what contexts LilyPond will
> > automatically insert in my score. If I have a \context StaffGroup <
> > \context Void < ... > >, it will add a Staff etc. And somewhere it
> > seems to add an OrchestralScore or something also.
>
> Yes it's messy. At least it would be nice if Lilypond could
> output the full context structure for the score in some
> easily readible form.
Yes, that would be very helpful.
> I think it makes sense to be able to declare an identifier for the
> context, since you could have different versions of the same context.
> For example, there is a version of the standard StaffContext called
> OrchestralPartStaffContext which adds bar numbers and rehearsal marks.
> Both these translators have the same \name "Staff" but do slightly
> different things. When you say \translator{\OrchestralPartStaffContext}
> you tell Lilypond that all contexts of type "Staff" should use the
> translator which includes these extra engravers.
> Your solution works well as long as you just want to make the change
> to a single score, but if you want to use the same customized layout
> in many scores or even share it to other users, it's much more convenient
> to declare it once and use a shorthand name - an identifier.
I can see from the above that I don't understand anything. What does
it actually mean when I write \context Staff in my score? How is the
identifier "Staff" used, and how does it correspond to context
definitions? I guess I should RTFM again, but it didn't help much
last time.
I guess I'd be much more comfortable with a scheme interface to all
this. But then again, I have a M.Sc. in Computer Science...
--
David Kågedal
