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