Re: adding hideKeySignature to lilypond commands

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Graham Percival wrote:
> 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"

At the moment, I don't consider bagpipe.ly to be my responsibity, so you 
can go cavort about. No guarantees that that won't change if people 
start to pay me for bagpipe support.

--
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen