Re: Implicit nonsense

[David Kastrup]

"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
>>> well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
>>
>> Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
>> If you write
>>
>> \new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
>>
>> the tie just disappears.  So I can't say this works well with "Staff
>> rather than StaffGroup".
>
> "usually".  You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.

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


-- 
David Kastrup