Re: Implicit nonsense

[Trevor Daniels]

Eluze wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:58 PM

> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > 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.
> why not  - while composing or just copying you might include a sequence 
> you
> have written into a variable…
>
> > Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
> > But I agree the implementation is deficient.
>
> what exactly is deficient?!

It can introduce spurious Staff contexts, as here.

> the right container for this is neither the StaffGroup nor a Staff, it's
> simply a Voice!
>
> and putting the whole stuff in an implicit or explicit Voice context there
> is no problem at all.

Exactly; but that wasn't the point of the discussion.
David was trying to create a snippet for the docs,
which do not (normally) specify all the contexts
explicitly.

Trevor