Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes:
> On May 6, 2015, at 14:43 , David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Neither \octave { bes, c d e f } nor \octave c { c' bes as g } or
>> \octave c'' { c' bes as g } seem particularly convincing.
>
> +1
>
>> \absolute c { c; bes as g } \absolute c'’ { c' bes as g }
>
> After further thought, and with respect, “meh." \transpose is
> effective, mostly obvious, and doesn’t require explaining away things
> like a pitch parameter with no effect that must be a c.
>
> Is there anything stopping a user who wants a shorthand for \transpose
> c X \absolute from defining one?
Frescobaldi, Emacs, and other readers of the source code will not be
used to his shorthand then and there will be no examples of it in the
manuals.
Something like "Lilypond supports relative octave note entry where each
note's octave is relative to the previous pitch, and it is easy for the
user to define his own note entry commands where note's octaves are
specified relative to some fixed pitch" is not exactly giving similar
weight to two modes of entry.
That's basically all. We don't force people to define their own
shorthands for a lot of other things or expect them to spell stuff out:
that's more like a MusicXML approach than a LilyPond one.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
