David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > >> I definitely use a lot of chord repetition, and I always (= 99% of the >> time) use \relative. In fact, until only recently, most of my code had >> \relative {} instead of the now-promoted \relative x {} [where x is >> the first note in the music expression]. (I am slowly updating my old >> code to fix this.) > > I do not remember that we promoted \relative x, actually. What I wanted > to promote at one point of time was having \relative { ... } be > equivalent to \relative f { ... } since then the first note inside can > _always_ be specified as if it was absolute: > > \relative c' { f' } -> f'' > \relative c' { g' } -> g' > \relative f { f' } -> f' > \relative f { g' } -> g' > > Since \relative f looks contrived (it's not easy to explain what makes > f special), being able to leave off the pitch and have it secretly > replaced by f would make sense. > > Of course, it would appear that enough legacy code with \relative { > ... } is around to make that change somewhat painful.
Ah, what the heck. convert-ly to the rescue. <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229> With that definition, there is a satisfactorily non-arbitrary no-nonsense choice of a reference pitch for \relative: none at all. The first note is its own reference. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user