Re: Proposed new available and recommended behavior of \relative

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> this suggestion might take the crown of the most discussed change away
> from the treble clef touchup - i'm impressed :)

Well, easy if it's an extensive change proposed by a quarrelsome
blockhead having nothing to do with his time except working on and
talking about LilyPond.

> Anyway, i see the situation as follows:
> - most of us consider changing the behaviour of \relative {} (without
> explicit reference pitch) a good idea,
> - we (i.e. user community) are not sure whether this new \relative {}
> should be the recommended way of doing things.
>
> I suggest to implement the first thing and then wait several weeks.

Actually, that's what I proposed in a separate prong of the discussion
right now, too.

> We'll be able to make a better, more informed decision about the
> second issue after actually using new \relative {} for some time.
> I remember when David suggested that we should recommend \relative f
> {} instead of \relative c' {} - we had quite a discussion back then.
> Now it turns out that many people are happily using \relative f {}.

Not sure about "many", and while it serves the same function, its syntax
makes it sort of an insider joke.

It's sort of the \romannumeral of the LilyPond community (if you see
\romannumeral used for programmatic purposes in TeX code, it's unlikely
that its author has never heard of me).

-- 
David Kastrup