RE: adding hideKeySignature to lilypond commands

[Sven Axelsson]

From: Graham Percival [mailto:address@hidden 
> 
> On 3-Aug-05, at 11:44 PM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
> 
> Our Fearless Leader will object to this, probably using dire phrases 
> like "polluting the global LilyPond namespace" and "creating future
> support nightmares".  What happens in six months when we
> decide to add hideKeySignature to the general lilypond commands?

Fine, I can understand that, but having this in the bagpipe include file
does not pollute the global namespace, since it isn't included by
default. And if a user does include it, he will also want to have the
hidden behaviour. Thus, no problem.

> > Keeping these commands in bagpipe.ly would ensure that we 
> > don't clash with anything else. We can then assume that anyone 
> > who includes bagpipe.ly do want to write bagpipe music and that 
> > they are fine with the "hidden" behaviour of also setting the key 
> > signature.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Sven Axelsson