On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 10:08:02PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote: > 2009/9/4 Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu>: > > > setInstrumentName = > > #(define-music-function (parser location instrument-name) (string?) > > #{ > > \set Staff.instrumentName = $instrument-name > > #}) > > I'm not in favour of this type of substitution function; I hope it's > not indicative of the kind of approach we'll be pursuing in GLISS.
It's not necessarily the approach we'd be pursuing. We haven't decided what approach to take, precisely, and we *won't* even be starting that discussion for another week or two. If that copyright fuss hadn't been started, I might have initiated the discussion it this weekend. But as it is, we've already used up half of Septembrer's quota for huge non-work discussions. > Apart from cluttering the source with syntactic sugar constructs, this > hard-codes inflexibility which is detrimental to users' understanding > of LilyPond. We already have too many predefined commands which rely > on particular contexts; imagine a user wanting to set an instrument > name for a PianoStaff: the above is useless in this situation. Those are extremely good points. In the interests of a full discussion (on a separate mailist, to avoid cluttering -devel), I'm not going to announce that we *won't* do this kind of thing, but unless the proponents of such an approach have terrifically good reasons to counter or override the above, I can't imagine going ahead with it. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user