David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:57 AM > "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > >> Colin Hall wrote Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:12 AM >> >>> It looks like the behaviour has been explained by David Kastrup here: >>> >>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-06/msg00380.html >>> >>> So, no bug in Lilypond to report then. >> >> Correct. >> >>> If either of you, Alexandre or Trevor, would care to create a >>> documentation suggestion we'll create a tracker for it. >> >> OK. There are two points here. The first is that it is not >> immediately obvious that the inversion takes place around >> from-pitch, and the result is then transposed by the interval >> between from-pitch and to-pitch. So simply change the >> second sentence to "... first inverted interval by interval about >> from-pitch and then ..." >> >> The second point is to insert a warning that the inversion of a music >> expression in absolute notation should not later be relativised. >> Maybe say, "The source and inverted music expressions should >> both be in absolute notation or both in relative notation." This >> is not entirely the whole story, but anything more accurate gets >> very convoluted - unless anyone has a better suggestion. > > "Both in relative notation" is asking for trouble. I'd strongly suggest > only inverting absolute music, and the result of \relative ... _is_ > absolute music.
OK, how about this: "If the pitches in a motif are expressed in relative form be sure to apply any inversions to the motif outside a \relative block, not within it." Or maybe, "Motifs to be inverted should be expressed in absolute form or be first converted to absolute form by enclosing them in a \relative block." I prefer the second wording. Trevor _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
