Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-02-01 Thread Trevor Daniels
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

Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread Janek WarchoĊ‚
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread Trevor Daniels
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread Trevor Daniels
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread David Kastrup
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread Trevor Daniels
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread -Eluze
! 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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread Trevor Daniels
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

Re: Implicit nonsense

2012-01-31 Thread David Kastrup
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