Re: A few remarks concerning \relative

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 03:58:32PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 07:54:11AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Why c?
> >
> > Because C is the default "base note" in western classical music.
> 
> That's a non-sequitur since it means that the following note will,
> without any octave indication, be one of
> 
>     g a b c' d' e' f'
> 
> So \relative c' leaves us with a "base note" of g.

Hmm, good point.  I don't think it's a non-sequitur because I
meant to claim that people find it easier to find a note relative
to C than relative to F.  Yes, of course typesetters need to be
able to figure out relative notes all the time in lilypond, but I
personally find it easier to it to C.  And depending on the style
of music, you can just write your notes without any octave
indications, and only change the few instances when it ends up in
the wrong octave.
(granted, that's more common for vocal music than instrumental
music)

I don't think that F completely solves it.  I mean, suppose I want
to get an A440.  Do I do
  \relative f' { a4 }
or
  \relative f'' { a4 }
?

I mean, I remember that c' is middle C, so c'' is C 523, so it's
easy for me to write
  \relative c'' { a4 }
Coming up with f' or f'' is only easier if you have the absolute
scale of lilypond notes memorized, and I certainly don't.  (I
don't even remember if those ocataves start on A or C!)

Granted, I'm biased because I've been staring at
  \relative c{'/''//,/,,} {
all this time.

> > Well, I've been wanting to get rid of it for years.  I was
> > only waiting for GLISS.
> 
> One could start by removing it from snippets and regtests.

Yes, one could.

Cheers,
- Graham