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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo