Re: adding hideKeySignature to lilypond commands

[Graham Percival]

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"

- Graham