[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Still confused about context vs. new

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: Still confused about context vs. new
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:45 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070716)

I personally have *never* needed to use \new.
\context implicitly instantiates a new context if the
one named doesn't yet exist, so \new is redundant, *except* where you
want multiple distinct contexts with the same name, or you're using
unnamed contexts (which, internally, is the same thing)

Distinct objects should (as a general rule) be named distinctly, so
that leaves the only place to use \new: when you want unnamed contexts.
Yes, it's certainly possible to use \new vs. \context in this way. However, I think that it's
conceptually easier and more pedagogical to use the following strategy:
- Use \new whenever you want a new context, be it named or anonymous.
- Use \context only when referring to an already existing context .

As you have pointed out, this is not enforced by LilyPond, but I still think it's a good habit and
good way to teach about LilyPond.

However, there are some fine details about the use of named contexts that I don't understand fully.
I'll start a separate email thread about that in a moment.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]