Re: lilypond/Documentation/user examples.itely

[Graham Percival]

This isn't to demonstrate \tag.  If I wanted to do that, I'd add it to 
the Notation
chapter.  Example templates isn't the place to demonstrate such things.

No, the reason is that I have a pathological dislike of having anything
in the individual instrument files that doesn't need to be there.
Sure, I could do:
> > % Full score:
> > <<
> >  \new Staff { << \global \Violinone >> }
> >  \new Staff { << \global \Violintwo>> }
> >  \new Staff { << \global \Viola>> }
> >  \new Staff { << \global \Cello>> }
> >  >>
> > % First violin part:
> >  \new Staff { << \global \Violinone >> }

But that's longer than
% full score
  \new StaffGroup \keepWithTag #'score \music
%first violin part
  \keepWithTag #'vn1 \music


Now, is there any reasonable advantage?  I'm not certain
if there are (although I don't think that having this example
in the templates section hurts anybody).

I still like the idea, though.  It provides a standard way of
creating individual instrument files -- or combinations
of instruments.  Once you've created the main file
("piece.ly" in the template), you don't need to fool around
with creating the infrastructure for each individual instrument.
I still make mistakes when I'm doing the whole
\score{ \new StaffGroup << \new Staff {} \newStaff {} >> }
thing.  It's easier for me to get that stuff done once.

Is it useful for LilyPond experts?  No, probably not.  But I
imagine that quite a few non-experts could really
appreciate creating input files this way.

- Graham

On 7-Jan-05, at 2:03 AM, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Now I realize that you did this to get an example of how to use \tag.
> Still, the problem is that it doesn't really show any advantage (as
> far as I can see). Can't we find a better example where the command
> gives a clearer advantage?
>
>    /Mats