Re: anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs?

[James]

Hello,

On 18/10/2010 23:40, Keith E OHara wrote:
> On mailing list lilypond-user, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> > Keith E OHara wrote Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:40 AM
> >
> > > I no longer see any reason to use instrumentCueName for the labels
> > > that identify the instrument playing cue notes.
> >
> > OK. I'll see what you suggest.
>
> I suggest (diff attached) removing the part about instrumentCueName in
> favor of a fuller example for \killCues. The manual teaches markup
> elsewhere; the challenge with cue-note labels is to let the label appear
> with the cue notes in parts, but not in the score.
>
> bassoon = \relative c {
> \clef bass
> R1
> \tag #'part {
> \clef treble
> s1*0^\markup { \tiny "flute" }
> }
> \cueDuring #"flute" #UP { R1 }
> \tag #'part \clef bass
> g4. b8 d2
> %{%}>

Sorry for jumping in here, I have read the thread prior to this and 
while I agree the Cue Notes section is sketchy, I am not sure how this 
is an improvement and this seems more complicated.

What are we achieving here?

Granted I can now 'format' my markup (or rather I could never see how to 
change the size or font-type of the instrument name) but other than 
that, having to incorporate a spacer and a \tag seems a step backwards 
and some might go as far as to say a 'hack' to not using what we did before.

I am not saying this is not valid but we don't tend to document 
workarounds or hacks, these are snippets. If this is to show a 
'different' or 'another' way of doing things then fair enough but I'm 
not convinced there is enough description in this case at least in the 
example and nor do I know the ramifications of explicitly setting markup 
'outside' of the cue notes section (vs incorporating it within) for the 
rest of a score.

I hope that makes sense. At the moment I am just seeing this change for 
change's sake.

james