Well, if the convention is to re-start numbering, than I'll go with that. My exemplar was another mass by the same composer that had consecutive numbering (but the guy who did the work did a terrible job in other respects: composing out the figured bass, terrible typesetting, etc.). I suppose I have no good reason to follow that example.
As for the more fundamental question about why I can't just have the \include lines inside one master \score block: each of the \included files is divided up between a set of variables defining the musical content that look something like this:
ViolinoOneMusic = \new Voice \relative c'' {
c c c c | e d c a |
}
and a \score block at the bottom controlling grouping, layout, and instrument names:
\score {
<<
\new StaffGroup = "StaffGroup_strings" <<
\new GrandStaff = "GrandStaff_violins" <<
\new Staff = "Staff_violinoI" {
\override Staff.InstrumentName.self-alignment-X = #LEFT
\set Staff.instrumentName = \markup \left-column { \abs-fontsize #10 \line {Violino I } }
\global \ViolinoOneMusic
}
(etc etc…)
>>
the \global variable is at the top of each included file and controls time signature overrides, beat divisions, and the like (so that 3/4 is 2 2 2, not 3 3).
It's somewhat convoluted, but it allows me to keep all the music blocks next to one another in score order, with nothing else in between to make part-to-part comparisons difficult. I break every five bars, so I can usually find parallel measures fairly readily without having to consult the pdf output.
Anyway, thank you for schooling me on correct bar numbering. I shall proceed as I was.
Cheers,
A