I started this with the belief that relative octave notation is easier
to write (for some people) but absolute octave notation is easier to
read, and thus the expectation that many examples would be simpler using
absolute pitches, or the new \fixed c'' {}.
However, there were not so many examples where a fixed octave reference
would really help.https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode912 Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:912: >> One of only two examples in Learning where a single \relative was bad advice. https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely File Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode625 Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:625: the passing note and a slur: This pair of examples changes the entry order of the pitches, so would be easier to read with \fixed c' https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode646 Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:646: } The example is a case where a single \relative applied to parallel voices might be practical. It would line up better with its re-arrangement below if we use \fixed c' https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/diff/110001/Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely#newcode668 Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely:668: >> The other example in Learning where the single outer \relative was really bad advice. https://codereview.appspot.com/237340043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
