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

[Simon Albrecht]

Two small thoughts also from me:

– I think the preference one will take also depends on musical style: a 
piece of renaissance vocal music uses so few leaps greater than a fourth 
that the advantage of relative in typing is huge and it’s 
‘error-pronity’ small. On the other extreme, a piano piece by George 
Crumb would probably a showcase for where absolute mode is at its best, 
if you get my point.

Am 23.04.2015 um 03:41 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> > > deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the plague.
> > Why?
> 1. It doesn’t play well with reuse: both trivial reuse (i.e., cut-and-paste) 
> and more advanced (i.e., referenced in variables) require extra care at the 
> very least, and outright extra work (e.g., octave checks, transposition, etc.) 
> in most cases. This means that sharing bits of music either within a file/piece 
> or between files/pieces (or even between users) requires extra work and is 
> error-prone.
>
>
> 2. It makes what should be simple adjustments unnecessarily complicated, with 
> unnecessarily large impacts. Consider, as just one example, my paired functions
How about modifying these as
> split =
> #(define-music-function (parser location music1 music2)
>     (ly:music? ly:music?)
>     #{ <<
>           \relative c' { \voiceOne $music1 }
>           \context Voice = "2" \relative c' { \voiceTwo $music2 }
>        >> \oneVoice
>     #})
>
> splitLU =
> #(define-music-function (parser location music1 music2)
>     (ly:music? ly:music?)
>     #{ <<
>           \relative c' { \voiceTwo $music1 }
>           \context Voice = "2" \relative c' { \voiceOne $music2 }
>        >> \oneVoice
>     #})
This should reduce confusion here.
So, no reason for a crusade :-)

Yours, Simon