Re: Implicit nonsense

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
>
>> Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
>> differently?  That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
>>
>> From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
>>
>> Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
>> another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
>> establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
>> In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
>> affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
>> in this example.
>>
>> @c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
>> @lilypond[verbatim,quote]
>> \new Voice
>> \relative c'' {
>>  \chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
>>  \relative c''
>>  { <a-. c\prall e>1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
>>  q2 c |
>> }
>> @end lilypond
>
> It's not unusual to have explicit contexts specified in the docs.  See
> for example much of the vocal music section.  Usually,
> though, we specify \new Staff, leaving the Voice context
> implied, rather than the other way round.  That should work
> here too, and would be more in accord with other @lilypond snippets in
> the docs.

It would create two voices, meaning that if the user uses this construct
somewhere else, it would surprising effects, like not working with
\addlyrics or ties or whatever.

> Lose the comment, though.

Why?  It keeps people from removing the \new Voice from the docs.

-- 
David Kastrup