Hi Trevor,
I absolutely agree. Seems like these examples need to follow our “tiny
examples policy” and not use unnecessary complexity.
On 17.12.24 18:00, Trevor Bača wrote:
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/notation/tweak-and-single
[…]
< \single \easyHeadsOn c' g' >2
There’s no reason for this example to use \relative at all. It should
simply be
{ < \single \easyHeadsOn c'' g'' >2 }
One line, nothing else needed. I won’t start debating the spaces within
<> since I don’t have an entirely consistent policy on that myself…
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/notation/line-spanners
... shows four lines of code ...
\override Glissando.breakable = ##t
\override Glissando.bound-details.right-broken.Y = -3
c''1 \glissando \break
f''1
.... that will explode if users try to evaluate them. This is not a valid
LilyPond expression.
This applies to almost all of the examples on this page. IMO, the
examples with a \relative expression starting _after_ the pertinent
overrides are even worse, since in any normal use case it would be very
weird to keep the overrides out of \relative{}.
I’d argue that not only do these examples not require \relative, most of
them don’t require explicit pitches at all. The last example could just
as well be
{
\endSpanners{ 1\> }1 \bar "||"
\endSpanners{1\<1\startTextSpan}1
}
and thus avoid distractions.
Seems like someone™ should turn that into a patch/merge request… I’d
love to contribute more that way myself, but I’m still unable to make
time unfortunately.
Best, Simon
