Re: What is the problem with "\relative"? (Was: Do we really offer the future?)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi,

> It makes me think that it was a wrong design decision in lilypond to use
> ' and , for octave indications and digits 1, 2, 4, 8, ... for durations.
> If we had used digits for octave designations instead, absolute mode
> would be much less painful to write, e.g.:
> 
>       c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5

All other things being equal, that *would* have been great.

> only powers of 2 are valid for durations

I wonder if that’s true fundamentally, or if that’s just a parser limitation… 
It’s certainly not true for defining time signatures, moments, or other such 
things (which all take rational n/m), so I would think it should be possible to 
make Lily accept (e.g.) c3 as a valid duration.

> But as far as relative mode is concerned, I agree that it has its warts
> (especially when temporary split voices have their current relative
> octaves taken from the last note in the input file as opposed to the
> last common voice, which is extremely annoying). However, it works
> wonders when writing orchestral parts where you need to double at the
> octave -- just a cut and paste with an adjustment / octave check at the
> beginning and you're all set, whereas in absolute mode you have to
> painstakingly edit every single note to change the octave after pasting.

Actually, I use \quoteDuring with \transpose; no cutting-and-pasting or editing 
of individual notes required. It works wonders! Best of all, if I change a note 
in the “original parts”, it automatically changes correctly in all the 
“mirrored parts”. (I did this with my last big orchestral Christmas carol 
arrangement: there were 9 wind parts that played only 2 patterns, so the time 
savings was significant.)

> Please don’t deprecate [relative mode]!

I’m sure it won’t be deprecated, despite its many flaws.

Cheers,
Kieren.

________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden