Hello,
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM, <lilyp...@googlecode.com> wrote:
>
> Comment #14 on issue 1110 by lemzw...@gmail.com: Wrong octave of repetition
> chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110
>
> Maybe I'm naïve, but shouldn't q be processed much earlier? What we really
> want IMHO is a shorthand at the input level to spare a lot of typing; thus
>
> <a c e'> q
>
> should be equal to typing
>
> <a c e'> <a c e'>
But doesn't that only really work *if* the gap between the notes with
the ' or , on them don't force the 'next' notes in the 'next' chord
up/down the octave?
>
> and as soon as a new <...> is seen, this new chord used as the substitution
> for q.
Isn't that what \repeat unfold is for (and isn't this just the same
problem with \relative too?).
Why not take \relativism out of < ... > together? and force absolute
mode only when in < ... > (or rather ignore \relative for anything in
< ... > ) then we could do away with q and just use \repeat unfold <
... >. I don't write chorded music - which probably shows - and am
wondering if removing relativism from chords is such a big deal for
typesetters in terms o 'the majority' wouldn't care if they had to
write chords in absolute mode and use repeat unfold which would
guarantee true 'replication' of what came previously versus those that
needed relativism in their sequences of chords and had to add ' or ,
as appropriate.
>
> Consequently I wonder whether handling of q can't be done by the lexer (or
> parser? I always mix this up :-). Maybe such an implementation would be
> really dumb, but I think that too much cleverness with \relative causes more
> headaches than necessary...
I think it's more of a case of worrying too much about \relative mode
in certain musical typesetting aspects. I can't see that much is lost
by banishing it from < ... >.
--
--
James
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
