lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: PATCH: Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue.

 From: Graham Percival Subject: Re: PATCH: Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue. Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 18:49:53 +0100 User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

```(sorry for the excessive quoting, but it's relevant)

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 05:27:02PM +0100, James Lowe wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
>>> write
>>>
>>> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' { c2 d }
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {
>>>  c2 d
>>> }
>>>
>>> but back when the GDP was established the LilyPond format rules said we
>>> needed to use { } even if it wasn't required.  I couldn't find this rule in
>>> section 3.4.3 of Contributing,  so maybe it's gone away.
>>
>> No, that's still around.  James, could you add this rule to the CG?
>>
>
> I'm still not really clear on what this rule should be from this whole
> thread. Are you talking about notes within { } when using any LilyPond
> Command before said notes?
>
> Taking a random example in the doc for errr...
>
> Chord Repetition, the example is
>
> <c e g> q q q
>
> There are no { } there and it seems they would look awkward.
>
> { <c e g> q q q }
>
> Does that make sense or have I missed something?

Hmm.  Maybe the rule should be "Always use { } in conjuction with
a \new or \context "?  or maybe "Always use { }, even if they
aren't required, other than the ones that would surround the
entire example if we didn't use the [fragment] option" ?

Trouble is, I'm not certain which commands we require the {} for,
in addition to \new and \context, but I have the feeling there
were a few.  I mean, given an example, I could unambiguously state
them... oh, hey, there's \relative and \transpose as well... but
I'm not confident in giving the entire list.

I think the "always add explicit {} apart from ones that would
surround an entire example" might the best way to go; if we
encounter any more exceptions to the "always use them" rule, we