Kevin Barry <barr...@tcd.ie> writes:
> Dear LilyPond users,
>
> Am I right in saying that the proposed new \relative {}, where the
> first pitch is absolute, is equivalent to simply writing \relative f
> {} in current usage?
Yes in Western scales.
> That might make it easier to explain in documentation than trying to
> explain that the first note is treated differently to the rest,
> although f may initially seem like a strange choice of reference point
> to a new user.
What is the resulting pitch of
\relative c' { ces, } ?
Quick, without thinking? What is the resulting pitch of
\relative f { fes, } ?
Quick, without thinking? What is the proposed resulting pitch of
\relative { fes, } ?
Now there is not even an opportunity for thinking. Yes, f is special,
but telling people to translate \relative { x } first into \relative f {
x } and then figuring out its meaning is putting the cart before the
horse.
The whole point of the choice \relative f is not that f is such a pretty
pitch, but rather the invariant we get, namely that the first pitch
after \relative (whether it is only a reference pitch or part of the
music) is absolute.
> As for the change itself I'm in favour of it, but I don't feel
> strongly about it.
It is conceivable we'll split it in two parts. Part one would be
changing definition and existing uses of \relative without reference
pitch. I don't think consider this change really controversial.
But its main point is making things simpler (and obviating an otherwise
arbitrary choice), and _if_ one considers this point met, this would
warrant changing it to the usage we promote by example.
With the current 2-week release schedule, the time frame we are talking
about is a month. Even the part one change (a reduced version of the
convert-ly rules, the definition change of \relative, and accompanying
documentation not written yet) will not make it into this weekend's (?)
release.
I'd prefer not having to write two different batches of documentation:
to make phase two stick, one would need adaption of a _lot_ of
introductory material anyway. But that does not mean that all
documentation work has to happen in the same development version as
either of the other steps. It does have to happen timely, and
definitely before the next stable release.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
