Re: why is Instrument_name_engraver not universal?

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Samstag, 24. Januar 2009 08:11:46 schrieb Mark Polesky:
> I know we've been through this before*, but
> does anyone have a good reason NOT to add
> Instrument_name_engraver to ALL the staff
> contexts? 

I've wondered about that too, some time ago. In particular, if one does not 
set instrumentName or shortInstrumentName, it will not have any effect on the 
staff or group. On the other hand, if one sets one of these properties, then 
definitely wants these names to appear. So, intuitively, I would also say that 
the engraver should be added to all staves and groups. I don't know if there 
are some technical reasons against it, though. (FWIW, In my OrchestralLily 
package I already add the engraver to all staves, so I have not been bothered 
by this problem for quite a while now, but it would still be better if the 
plain vanilla LilyPond would already have that setting).

Cheers,
Reinhold
- -- 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJew8uTqjEwhXvPN0RAjGSAKCur2uF7tTVLCYF39KSIRDcLB1F4QCeKTyk
48jXPn1OsQWLqIZU4Zn3rNg=
=utlT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----