Re: Proposed new available and recommended behavior of \relative

[David Kastrup]

Robert Schmaus <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I haven't read all posts on this subject, so sorry should I write
> something that's already been written.
> Why not keep the \relative <pitch> { <music> } syntax as one supported
> way and simply change the \relative { <music> } syntax to what David
> proposed?

Uh, that was the plan anyway.  The question was rather whether we should
convert to using the second form preferably in documentation and
examples.

> I myself have always only used the first version (I didn't even know
> the other existed, to be honest), and I liked the idea of having a
> lever outside the music that shifted the music ocave-wise.

\transpose c c'' is such a lever.

> Or, as an alternative, the \relative { <music> } syntax could rely on
> music that was written *before* the relative block.

That one is not an actual alternative.

xxx = \relative { c d e f g }
yyy = \relative { c d e f g }

\new Voice { \yyy \xxx }

Now what is the music "written before the relative block"?  The whole
point of \relative is that it returns absolute music given relative
music.  You propose it should return relative music given relative
music.  But how would music then become absolute?

> That way, one would avoid the awkwardness of explaining that the first
> note in the \relative block is actually absolute. It just says that
> everything in the relative block is, well, relative to what was before
> (if anything) or a default (like c') otherwise. That also makes sense
> semantically.

The first pitch after \relative is an absolute pitch.  That makes sense
semantically.

> Thus, the proposed syntax of 
>
> \relative { r4 a'' a f c } 
>
> where a'' is absolute would become 
>
> r4 a'' \relative{ a f c }

See above.  Making this proposal work in a sensible and predictable
manner would be quite harder than it might appear.

-- 
David Kastrup