2008/8/13 Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have found a place where \new is needed. ... > everything works as it should. Apparently, in the first usage, the unnamed > Staff context had been implicitly created and was unsuccessfully reused. > > Given this result, it appears to me that \new is safer than \context for > unnamed context, so I believe it should be the preferred behavior.
This is most interesting, both the investigation of how LP really works and the pedagogical point of view. But, instead of doing reverse engineering all the time, shouldn't the core developers simply explain how did they coded \context and \new, when are they needed, what do they differ in, etc? Sometimes I think we treat LP as if it was a natural phenomenon and we were scientists from the 19th century trying to explain it. It is a piece of software, someone did it. I know it is very complex, but only for us, not for them, I assume. I am sorry if this sounds harsh. LP is great. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) http://www.paconet.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
