David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:00 AM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
2012/1/31 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
+1
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining the
drawbacks of implicit contexts for some years now.
I
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of
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
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
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
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect
!
and putting the whole stuff in an implicit or explicit Voice context there
is no problem at all.
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Implicit-nonsense-tp33235869p33240042.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com
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
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since
12 matches
Mail list logo