Re: A few remarks concerning \relative

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/9/11 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 04:45:13PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> The interesting question is whether \relative c' gives you (namely
>>> Graham Percival) a _better_ idea of what the next note will be rather
>>> than, say, \relative a'.
>>
>> Yes, it does -- with the admission that I'm biased due to
>> familiarity with \relative c.  Is a' above or below c' ?  I can't
>> remember.
>>
>> I'm not claiming that we should write the documentation for Graham
>> Percival, of course.  I think that most newcomers would find it
>> easier to deal with \relative c rather than any other pitch, but
>> if somebody does a proper experiment, I would be convinced
>> otherwise.
>
> Let me suggest
> <URL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.general/66503>
> as one data point supporting my contention that \relative f and its
> relatives might be worth mentioning in the manual.
>
> "\relative f
> will use whatever note starts that group as the \relative note
> (think about it!)."

Magnificent!  I didn't realize what you were saying at the beginning,
but now i see and i'm stunned!  A "ransparent" relative!  It's
definately worth mentioning in the docs.
As for the original question - whether we should encourage \relative
f* instead of \relative c* - i'm not sure.  \relative f is indeed very
smart and perhaps more fool-proof (i admit making mistakes with
\relative c' - mainly when i want pitch b or b' to appear).  It's only
drawback is that it requires some thinking at the beginning; i'm not
opposed to thinking, but Lily is already very hard for beginners :(

> And no, "Basso Ridiculoso" is not a sock puppet.  I sing alto.

:D :D :D :D

cheers,
Janek