Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
>
> David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> 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?!
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.
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Implicit-nonsense-tp33235869p33240042.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
