Re: [patch] first-clef property

[Juergen Reuter]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:

> ...
> > Anyway, wouldn't it be nicer to have some kind of scheme macro that expands 
> > to code that prints an incipit?  Your "first clef" could then be just part 
> > of the incipit that the macro creates.  And maybe the clef's name either 
> > could passed as argument to the scheme macro.  Or, alternatively, you set 
> > an, say, "original-clef" property that the macro recognizes and accordingly 
> > acts upon.
>
> As I understand it, incipits are hackingly achieved using the
> instrument name.

This is just one possible approach.  Template A.5.1 demonstrates a 
different approach.  Apparently, both approaches have limitations/flaws.

> I want instrument names to be defined separately
> from incipit (they are not the same thing, there is no serious
> reason to bind them, beside purely technical ones):
>
> \new Staff <<
> \global
> \set Staff . instrumentName = \markup { The instrument name }
> \clef "xyz" %% automagically set the incipit clef
> { ... the notes ... }
> > >
>
> How could you make the mix of the two?

Ok, I think I understand the problem.

> Now, seeing the incipt examples, I realize that my patch is a hack
> too, for it would be nice to have also the time and key signatures,
> not only the ancient clef.
>
> Maybe creating an incipit engraver, reading new context properties,
> like incipitKeySignature, incipitTimeSignature, etc, and creating a
> grob of the same nature as the instrument name.

Yes, this idea definitely sounds very reasonable!  Still, implementing 
such an engraver may turn out challenging...

Greetings,
Juergen

> nicolas