lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Implicit nonsense


From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Implicit nonsense
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:45:18 -0000

David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:00 AM

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM

Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently?  That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.

From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):

Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
in this example.

@c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\new Voice
\relative c'' {
 \chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
 \relative c''
 { <a-. c\prall e>1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
 q2 c |
}
@end lilypond

It's not unusual to have explicit contexts specified in the docs.  See
for example much of the vocal music section.  Usually,
though, we specify \new Staff, leaving the Voice context
implied, rather than the other way round.  That should work
here too, and would be more in accord with other @lilypond snippets in
the docs.

It would create two voices, meaning that if the user uses this construct
somewhere else, it would surprising effects, like not working with
\addlyrics or ties or whatever.

Ah, OK.  Let's keep the Voice then.

Lose the comment, though.

Why?  It keeps people from removing the \new Voice from the docs.

Well, let's make it more self-explanatory rather than a side-swipe.

"An explicit Voice is necessary to avoid incorrect implicit Voice creation"

Trevor



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]