Re: tutorial and relative

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

>>   * use more complete and interesting examples lateron to explain
>>     several related concepts
>
> Maybe, maybe not.  I'd have to judge those on an individual basis.

Yes, of course.  Attempts were the lead sheets, piano part, orchestral part.

> If I understand you correctly, then yes.  The tutorial may gloss over
> some issues; the Notation chapters explain all the details.

Yes.  That's the main reason behind the relative stuff.

> !!!
> That's the first I've heard about this.  I wanted to avoid introducing
> \relative mode in the early stages, since it's more complicated that
> absolute pitches.

Indeed.  That's the catch.  Explaining about it is definately
something you do not want to do.  That's where replacing not-\relative
by \absolute would make things a bit easier, as we now have to ask
people to accept and ignore it...

> I t would be quite
> nice if we could tell people "unless otherwise specified, all examples
> in the notation manual are implicitly inside".
>
> \relative c' {
> %%% printed text
> }

Yes, but that's not possible, we use other fragment options to tweak
the output.  What we can say is: not all examples are ready for
cut-and-pasting, click on the .ly and copy the cut-and-pasteable
section from there.

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org