Clean up inconsistencies in engraver-init.ly and performer-init.ly

Clean up inconsistencies in engraver-init.ly and performer-init.ly

issue 4281

In performer-init.ly
- let context-defs be copied when possible
- add missing contexts for \accepts and \alias
- delete settings for ChordNameVoice
- add GregorianTranscriptionStaff, GregorianTranscriptionVoice, NoteNames,
  PetrucciStaff, PetrucciVoice
- all contexts are written without quotation marks

In engraver-init.ly
- add FretBoards to the accepted contexts in StaffGroup

[thomasmorley651, 2015-02-08 22:24:07]

correcting some oversights

[thomasmorley651, 2015-02-08 22:30:45]

please review

[lemzwerg, 2015-02-09 06:09:34]

LGTM.  It would be nice if David's checker script could be added, too.

https://codereview.appspot.com/199460043/diff/20001/ly/performer-init.ly
File ly/performer-init.ly (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/199460043/diff/20001/ly/performer-init.ly#newc...
ly/performer-init.ly:174: \accepts ChordNames
I wonder whether it makes sense to sort the many \accept lines alphabetically...

[thomasmorley651, 2015-02-09 23:46:45]

On 2015/02/09 06:09:34, lemzwerg wrote:
> LGTM.  It would be nice if David's checker script could be added, too.

More, I'd consider it a good idea to use the checker on the current patch again.
There was such a mess that I'm not sure I corrected all.

> 
> https://codereview.appspot.com/199460043/diff/20001/ly/performer-init.ly
> File ly/performer-init.ly (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/199460043/diff/20001/ly/performer-init.ly#newc...
> ly/performer-init.ly:174: \accepts ChordNames
> I wonder whether it makes sense to sort the many \accept lines
alphabetically...

I'd happily do it, though, why alpabetically? And why only for the lines with
\accept, could be done for the context-defs as well.
And it's also thinkable to sort it following context-hierarchy: first
bottom-contexts like Voice, then Staff up to Score and Global.
Or vice versa...

What do others think?

[thomasmorley651, 2015-02-12 22:47:37]

NullVoice added to the accepted contexts for RhythmicStaff in layout

[c_sorensen, 2015-02-18 18:53:03]

On 2015/02/09 23:46:45, thomasmorley651 wrote:

> 
> I'd happily do it, though, why alpabetically? And why only for the lines with
> \accept, could be done for the context-defs as well.
> And it's also thinkable to sort it following context-hierarchy: first
> bottom-contexts like Voice, then Staff up to Score and Global.
> Or vice versa...
> 
> What do others think?

Alphabetically.  The only reason for sorting them is to make it easy for a human
to find.  Context-hierarchy requires me to know the context hierarchy, which I
likely don't know fully.  Alphabetically is trivial for me to look.

Carl

[dak, 2015-02-18 18:57:21]

On 2015/02/18 18:53:03, c_sorensen wrote:
> On 2015/02/09 23:46:45, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'd happily do it, though, why alpabetically? And why only for the lines
with
> > \accept, could be done for the context-defs as well.
> > And it's also thinkable to sort it following context-hierarchy: first
> > bottom-contexts like Voice, then Staff up to Score and Global.
> > Or vice versa...
> > 
> > What do others think?
> 
> Alphabetically.  The only reason for sorting them is to make it easy for a
human
> to find.  Context-hierarchy requires me to know the context hierarchy, which I
> likely don't know fully.  Alphabetically is trivial for me to look.
> 
> Carl

Alphabetically is not feasible for context defs since several context defs are
based on previously defined context defs that are not preceding them in
alphabet.

[c_sorensen, 2015-02-18 19:11:43]

On 2015/02/18 18:57:21, dak wrote:
> On 2015/02/18 18:53:03, c_sorensen wrote:
> > On 2015/02/09 23:46:45, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'd happily do it, though, why alpabetically? And why only for the lines
> with
> > > \accept, could be done for the context-defs as well.
> > > And it's also thinkable to sort it following context-hierarchy: first
> > > bottom-contexts like Voice, then Staff up to Score and Global.
> > > Or vice versa...
> > > 
> > > What do others think?
> > 
> > Alphabetically.  The only reason for sorting them is to make it easy for a
> human
> > to find.  Context-hierarchy requires me to know the context hierarchy, which
I
> > likely don't know fully.  Alphabetically is trivial for me to look.
> > 
> > Carl
> 
> Alphabetically is not feasible for context defs since several context defs are
> based on previously defined context defs that are not preceding them in
> alphabet.

So /accepts sorted alphabetically, and context defs sorted in definition order?

Carl

[thomasmorley651, 2015-02-22 13:07:16]

accepted contexts ordered alphabetical; some formatting