k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
On 2015/05/03 20:25:22, dak wrote:On 2015/05/03 16:42:02, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I find it awkward when \absolute c'' and \absolute g'' mean exactlythe samething. But it's not like I could not live with it. But I still
would
recommendjust using c to keep one's options for possible later changes. Andnot have toomuch choice without associated meaningful difference.
The new patch (awkwardly) has \absolute c'' and \absolute g'' mean
exactly the same thing.
My reason for that was to present less of a surprise if someone used
\absolute g'' {g ...} wanting to start on G5, i.e., g''.
Well, yes this seems like something people would tend to do in analogy to some \relative convention. And yes, the expectation would likely be the same as with \absolute c''. And it's not like \transpose is not around when one wants it.
A few times people brought up \transpose c c' {...} as a useful method
of music entry, but people went on to suggest other entry methods that
didn't seem to me to be any easier
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-10/msg00332.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-03/msg00494.html
In a thread complaining about \relative, I suggested the \absolute 3
{}
variant, also without much interest.
Well, it's always hard to raise enthusiasm for something that does not actually offer anything new (\transpose exists). The people on the mailing lists are not beginners. This kind of addition would likely get the most useful feedback from people *teaching* LilyPond. We don't have a lot of those unless you count "batch teachers", namely documentation writers. https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
