Eluze wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:58 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with "Staff
rather than StaffGroup".
"usually". You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
why not - while composing or just copying you might include a sequence
you
have written into a variable…
Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
But I agree the implementation is deficient.
what exactly is deficient?!
It can introduce spurious Staff contexts, as here.
the right container for this is neither the StaffGroup nor a Staff, it's
simply a Voice!
and putting the whole stuff in an implicit or explicit Voice context there
is no problem at all.
Exactly; but that wasn't the point of the discussion.
David was trying to create a snippet for the docs,
which do not (normally) specify all the contexts
explicitly.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
