2011/9/11 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel