Re: anybody understand the instrumentCueName docs?

[Keith E OHara]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:34:05 -0700, Trevor Daniels wrote:

> If no one objects soon I shall push it.
James Lowe made comments that you might not have seen yet.  I see where he is 
coming from, but I hope my answer explained the purpose of the changes well 
enough.

> (For future reference, please avoid trailing whitespace, and if
> possible save the diff or patch with unix line endings - makes life easier :)
Can do (but with extra steps that I might forget despite best intentions).

> > 2) Two pieces of instruction were a bit vague :
[ . . . ]
> > "[...] when cue notes end, the name of the original instrument2
> > should be printed, and any other changes introduced by the cued
> > part should be undone.  This can be accomplished by using
> > @code{\addInstrumentDefinition}"

> I think we need a clearer description about using instrument
> definitions in relation to cued notes

I searched, but found no reason to use these features together.  I merely 
lacked the confidence to suggest removing those sentence altogether.

I *think* the source of this bit of documentation the thread,
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00278.html>
which resulted, I think, in the solution
<http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=388>.

That solution does not, in the end, use \addInstrumentDefinition, but I am not 
sufficiently git-savvy to see if the docs addition can be traced to that 
discussion and snippet.  (Maybe Reinhold he will have input if I cc: him.)
-Keith