On 2015/05/03 08:20:03, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I'm in favour of a change like this, but I'd prefer
the syntax and options to parallel those of
\relative. That is, an optional prefix pitch to indicate
the starting octave, and taking the starting octave from
the first contained note if the prefix is omitted. That
would then become an attractive alternative to \relative.
It would seem that our proposals are on one page regarding \absolute c''
{ c ...
However, I _think_ that your comment would suggest \absolute f'' { f ...
to be the same
as \absolute { f'' ... whereas I suggested making \absolute f'' { f ...
the same as \absolute { bes'' ...
Now there _is_ a difference between \relative c and \relative f. With
what I guess from your proposal, \absolute c and \absolute f would be
the same. And so would be \absolute b.
Now I actually like the idea of using \absolute bes' for entering a
trumpet in audible pitch using an input scale of { c d e f g ... }.
That's a concept different from \transpose c' bes' { ... } or \transpose
c bes' which primarily suggest a connection between _printed_ pitch and
audible pitch (like \transposition does) rather than _input_ pitch and
printed pitch.
I do realize that \relative only ever touches the octave, and it seems
to make little sense to have \absolute f turn { c, d, e, f g a b c d e
f' ... } into one continous scale even though it would only touch the
octave (like relative) and allow using as few octave marks as possible
for a given tessitura. But while that would also be a consistent
possibility, I don't think having e be a higher pitch than f is going to
win us a lot of sympathies. I prefer the transposing interpretation.
https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
