Sorry, yes I did copy yours because the original one had some kind of
formatting problem and I thought that yours was just a reformatting of the
original.


Thanks,

On Sat, May 16, 2020, 3:30 AM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:

> Flaming Hakama by Elaine <ela...@flaminghakama.com> writes:
>
> >> From: Klaus Blum <benbigno...@gmx.de>
> >> To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org" <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> >> Cc:
> >> Bcc:
> >> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:01:06 +0200
> >> Subject: Current octave in relative mode
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a function that uses a music expression twice.
> >> My problem is:
> >> In relative mode, this expression can lead into a different octave. Then
> >> the second application of the music expression starts from that new
> octave.
> >> (See the last two invocations of "\highlight" in the example below)
> >>
> >>
> >> % ----------------------------------------
> >> highlight =
> >> #(define-music-function (mus)
> >>     (ly:music?)
> >>     #{
> >>       <<
> >>         $mus
> >>         \makeClusters $mus
> >>       >>
> >>     #})
> >>
> >> \new Staff {
> >>    \highlight { c'8 d' e' f' g' a' b' c'' }
> >>    \relative c' {
> >>      c1  \highlight { c8 d e f g f e d }
> >>      c1  \highlight { c8 d e f g a b c }
> >>      c1  \highlight { f,4 e d c }
> >>      c1
> >>    }
> >> }
> >> % ----------------------------------------
>
> > I'm not quite sure what you are after here, except that some things are
> not
> > in the octave you want, but I'm not sure which.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > So, in your example, if all the c1's are supposed to be the same octave
> > this is accomplished by just specifying each of the ones you pass to your
> > function.
> >
> >
> > \version "2.19.81"
> > % ----------------------------------------
> > highlight =
> > #(define-music-function (mus)
> >   (ly:music?)
> >   (make-relative (mus) mus
> >    #{
> >      <<
> >        $mus
> >        \makeClusters $mus
> >      >>
> >    #}))
>
> You are aware that make-relative here fixes the problem?  Did you just
> copy the fixed version by accident from my reply?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>

Reply via email to