Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3229 in lilypond: Use \relative without explicit starting pitch in the docs

[lilypond]

Comment #32 on issue 3229 by address@hidden: Use \relative without explicit  
starting pitch in the docs
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229

> Comment #31 on issue 3229 by tdanielsmusic: Use \relative without
> explicit starting pitch in the docs
> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229

> This change to \relative has not really been widely publicised, so I'm
> not surprised at the apparent slow take-up.  It is quite well hidden
> as a third option in the NR and is not even mentioned in the LM.

I thought I had given it somewhat more balanced treatment.

> I wonder if we ought to bring it more to the fore in these manuals
> before making a sweeping change to all the examples?  After all, a
> change to the explanatory text of \relative will need to be made
> anyway;

> I'm just suggesting we do it first, before changing all the examples.

It definitely makes sense to do either both or none.

The main advantage I see is that it removes an arbitrary choice the user
has to make and which does not actually buy him anything.  \relative c'
was used in that manner but there is no reason c' would be better than
other choices like \relative c... such that the first note does not need
any octave markers, or \relative x... { x namely using the first note
itself as reference but then this needs the same amount of thought as
the current \relative { x... anyway while distributing information to
two places.

So there is a unique way in which this choice stands out from others
which was the whole point of making it the behavior for argument-less
\relative.

Now at
<URL:https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/682#issuecomment-96736604>
I read:

    In my memory, using \relative without a reference pitch was
    considered somewhat bad practice, but that was probably before the
    2.18 change, and even before that I've been using the `implicit'
    version.  And now there shouldn't be any reason to stay with the
    `old' way, is there?

which seems to strongly argue for not making any active choice but
taking the (shorter to type) default whatever it may be.  Which seems
sort of like picking your religion based on the nearest place of
worship, whatever the denomination.

At any rate, this seems like a question of consensus more than anything
else.

I can redo the patch if required and I think it had somewhat reasonable  
coverage.  It turns out that the version in branch "issue3229" in my  
repository seems to be somewhat more advanced than what the last Rietveld  
review shows.  So I apparently worked a bit more on it before stopping work.

--
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