On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Olivier Biot <olivier.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I have mixed feelings regarding the proposed syntax update of
> > \relative.
> >
> > Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative \music differently is
> > not intuitive and will likely result in octave errors.
>
> Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative is _absolutely_
> _unavoidable_ since the very _definition_ of relative pitches means that
> each pitch is specified in relation to the previous pitch, and the first
> pitch _has_ no previous pitch.
>
> So the first pitch will _always_ be special-cased. With a reference
> pitch, it is special-cased to refer to that absolute pitch. Without a
> reference pitch, it has to behave in _some_ manner as well.
>
I agree.
> > Personally I think that
> >
> > c'' \relative { ... }
> >
> > is more intuitive than
> >
> > \relative c'' { ... }
>
> music functions don't look back into context, and if they are in
> variables, they don't even _have_ context.
>
I wasn't aware of this - I took for granted that this was needed to keep
state. Probably \relative does this under the hood. Considering that
\relative came as a feature after the core LilyPond was written, it makes
sense to me now.
> > and could be made to work even when no starting pitch has been
> > specified, where the default LilyPond pitch would apply (IIRC c' as
> > starting point).
>
> The default LilyPond pitch. If you personally think that could be made
> to work, I am looking forward to your sample implementation.
>
Well, since there is no state information available as you stated, this is
going to be tricky indeed, unless we add another command that adds some
context the same way \relative computes the closest pitch to transform a
relative pitch expression into absolute pitches.
Or actually even a coherent and comprehensive human-readable definition
> that could be placed in the manual and would make it possible for a user
> to predict LilyPond's behavior without experimenting.
>
I see that as less of a problem. I'd read c'' \relative { e g b } as c'',
then after this a series of relative pitches starting from the last known
pitch (or c' - the default LilyPond pitch).
Thinking of which, I believe I am struggling with "music entry notation"
versus "music storage": writing in relative pitch is often easier for note
entry, but absolute pitches are IMHO better suited for storing music. I may
be trying to do both with the same "grammar".
Best regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
