Re: Still confused about context vs. new

[Mats Bengtsson]

> 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.

    /Mats