"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 nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
>> another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
>> establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
>> In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
>> affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
>> in this example.
>>
>> @c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
>> @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
>> \new Voice
>> \relative c'' {
>> \chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
>> \relative c''
>> { <a-. c\prall e>1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
>> q2 c |
>> }
>> @end lilypond
>
> It's not unusual to have explicit contexts specified in the docs. See
> for example much of the vocal music section. Usually,
> though, we specify \new Staff, leaving the Voice context
> implied, rather than the other way round. That should work
> here too, and would be more in accord with other @lilypond snippets in
> the docs.
It would create two voices, meaning that if the user uses this construct
somewhere else, it would surprising effects, like not working with
\addlyrics or ties or whatever.
> Lose the comment, though.
Why? It keeps people from removing the \new Voice from the docs.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
