Re: Implicit nonsense

[-Eluze]

Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> 
> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
> 
> 
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> 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 you write
>> 
>> \new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
>> 
>> the tie just disappears.  So I can't say this works well with "Staff
>> rather than StaffGroup".
> 
> "usually".  You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
> 
why not  - while composing or just copying you might include a sequence you
have written into a variable…


> Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
> But I agree the implementation is deficient.
> 
what exactly is deficient?!

the right container for this is neither the StaffGroup nor a Staff, it's
simply a Voice!

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.