[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lilypond manual intro
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: lilypond manual intro |
Date: |
Sun, 9 Sep 2012 07:28:51 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:19:36PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > (I'd also like to have an \absolute keyword so that doc examples
> > using it could be more explicit, but that would need to wait until
> > we have a good way to discuss syntax changes)
>
> absolute =
> #(define-music-function (parser location m) (ly:music?)
> #{ \transpose f f $m #})
>
> \relative c' { c f b \absolute { c' d' e' } c }
>
> It is not impervious against notename changes (I think I will at some
> point work on the notename language of #{...#} to correspond to the
> language at the time of definition rather than of use), but if required,
> it could be written equivalently in Scheme.
The point isn't to enable nesting of various \relative or
\transpose constructs. It's to make the notation more explicit.
At a first glance, renaming \sequential to \absolute (or adding a
"symlink" which means that \absolute does the same thing as
\sequential) would achieve the goal.
- Graham
- lilypond manual intro, Karl Berry, 2012/09/08
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Trevor Daniels, 2012/09/08
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/08
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Karl Berry, 2012/09/08
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/08
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Graham Percival, 2012/09/09
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Karl Berry, 2012/09/09
- Re: lilypond manual intro, Janek Warchoł, 2012/09/10
Re: lilypond manual intro, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2012/09/10