Hello,
I’d also vote for the three-ways distinction relative/absolute/octave as
put by Trevor.
Am 06.05.2015 um 20:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes:
Probably the best name is \octave, which was used for something
similar
until version 0.1.19
\octave c'' {c4 e g c e g c'1}
Sounds OK for me.
Huh. I like the contrast \relative/\absolute better. Particularly,
I like a sensible default when one leaves off the pitch.
Neither \octave { bes, c d e f } nor \octave c { c' bes as g } or
\octave c'' { c' bes as g } seem particularly convincing.
With octave, I’d consider it most intuitive/easy to use to
– only allow octaves of c in the first argument
– have it default to \octave c { … } (which would be equivalent to
absolute).
Do I get that right?
I like
\absolute { bes, c d e f } \absolute c { c; bes as g } \absolute c'' {
c' bes as g } better.
The name \octave fits nice verbally when the first note (even better,
all notes) can be entered without octave mark. However, that is not
generally the case.
How does that matter? Off the top of my head, I would interpret \octave
as a command to set the ‘reference octave’ for a music expression.
You’re right, the form \octave {} without first argument (as put above)
isn’t straightforward to read, it would require being used to it.
Perhaps it’s easier to use \absolute in that case.
One functional point of the original \absolute is that of being
impervious to enclosing \relative statements. \octave does not have
this connotation: it's easier to wonder with "\octave" how it will
interact/combine with \relative.
I would expect it to be exactly as impervious as absolute. If this is
documented clearly, I see no grounds for ambiguity.
Yours, Simon
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
