antlists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes:
> On 17/05/2020 00:04, David Kastrup wrote:
>> antlists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 16/05/2020 23:19, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>> As I say, I think this function or something similar has made its way
>>>>> into lilypond proper.
>>>
>>>> What advantage over the solution using make-relative that I posted do
>>>> you see here?
>>>
>>> Because if I understand the OP correctly, what he wants is
>>> \resetRelativeOctave, which is already a standard part of lilypond?
>> What he wants is music used twice within a function not to end up in
>> different octaves.
>
> Isn't that what \resetRelativeOctave does?
No? \resetRelativeOctave resets the current relative position to a
specified _absolute_ pitch. But in the given situation, the function
does not _have_ a specified absolute pitch to revert to.
> So let's give a very simple example of what I think he was trying to
> achieve ...
>
> arpeggio = { c e g c }
> \new Staff {
> \relative c' {
> \arpeggio \resetRelativeOctave c'
> \arpeggio \resetRelativeOctave c'
> \arpeggio
> }
> }
He was writing a _function_ using an expression twice. Not ad-hoc code.
This function would not know what to use for c' here.
> Despite being in relative mode, all the arpeggios will now start on
> middle C. The OP's eXample is more complicated but as far as I can
> tell this is what he's aiming at.
>
> Oh - and I believe
>
> arpeggio = { \resetRelativeOctave c' c e g c }
>
> would also work. I don't know for certain because I haven't had this
> problem since Pennsylvania.
In that case, it would make much more sense to write
arpeggio = \relative c' { c e g c }
since then arpeggio does not leave the current relative position lying
around in some obscure location but rather does not touch it at all.
--
David Kastrup
