On 4-Aug-05, at 1:21 AM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
I don't think we want *any* hidden behaviour -- especially when it's
not needed. What's wrong with using bagpipeHideKeySignature?
ok, it's a bit longer to type; we could figure out a shorter name.
Nothing wrong as such of course. But why should that bagpipe command
be treated specially? What if a \trebling markup is added elsewhere?
Should I then use \bagpipeTrebling instead? This can happen to any
command.
I don't think that any other instrument uses trebling or taor as notation
terms; (hide/show)KeySignature could well be used.
Han-Wen, what do you think? If you have no problem with it, then
I'll go along, since this _does_ require explicitly calling
\include "bagpipe.ly"