Comment #4 on issue 4371 by [email protected]: examples need explicit \relative
c'' {} to copy and paste correctly
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4371
Re #3: of course the point of @lilypond[relative=1] is to hide the
\relative. I just don't think it is a good idea to do that in general
because it makes it harder for people to reproduce the result.
Particularly if they are no fan of \relative.
For semi-simple examples like \absolute c' { c4 e g c g e c2 } I find the
input
c4 e g c g e c
quite more comprehensible than
c4 e g c, g' e c
At any rate, I was proposing to do this sort of hiding mainly when the
example was so simplistic that it would have worked equally well with some
\relative or (octave-transposing) \absolute incantation.
Yes, that would be a change in policy. Do we need an absolute=#
incantation to LilyPond-Book to accompany the relative=#? Not for meeting
this policy to the letter (because once \absolute differs from any
\relative, it would be either \absolute c or spelled out). It could still
be nice to provide.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
