Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2011/9/11 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>>
>> 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!
It is more likely that you only saw what I was saying at the beginning,
but now you realized what I was actually thinking.
The quoted sentence is definitely and quite embarrassingly utter
rubbish.
"\relative f will interpret whatever note starts that group as if it
were specified as an absolute pitch." would be what I meant. The
"\relative note", of course, is nothing but f if you specify "\relative
f".
> 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
> :(
It requires thinking if you have not yet come across it. If the
documentation (tutorial _and_ notation) mentions it prominently, it
should be idiomatic enough. I would have considered it a better default
for \relative { ... } as well, but that's water down the old drawbridge.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
