On 03/10/2013 03:50 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
The problem I have with talking much about \relative f is that f seems
arbitrary. However, maybe an explanation linking both of these concepts
and explaining how f is arrived at will allow both views to coexist.
That's what I was trying to get at with the second suggestion I was
making: "Note that when a pitch is written relative to f, the relative
and absolute representations of the note are the same."
You could even make this a stronger statement: "The reference pitch f
was chosen because notes written relative to f have the same
representation as their absolute pitch."
Quite unlikely. This conversion rule does not touch code it does not
understand.
That's certainly believable -- but the problem is that "{ \rhythm g }"
looks locally like something that it actually does understand, as it
looks like just a use of a music variable followed by a pitch.
To understand that it doesn't understand that, it would have to do at
least enough parsing of the definition of \rhythm in order to determine
that it is a scheme function that takes a single argument. Does it do
that? I don't know.
Evan
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
