Re: lilypond-book: relative should imply fragment

[John Mandereau]

On 2008/04/26, Graham Percival wrote:
> Could we get
>   [relative=x]
> to automatically imply
>   [fragment]
> ?  I can't imagine any possible use of [relative] where you don't
> want [fragment], and this would simplify the doc source by almost
> entirely omitting [fragment].

Indeed, relative=x doesn't work without fragment, so getting relative to
imply fragment is not really a simplification, it's even a bugfix :-)

Done in Git.

Best,
John