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
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel