Evan Driscoll <drisc...@cs.wisc.edu> writes: > 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.
First, it does not try interpreting things like \rhythm as a music variable. I was somewhat tempted to make an exception for \global since \global is used in a rather consistent manner in the docs, and considering it as neutral material would get quite a few more converted use cases. At any rate, take a look at \rhythm = { d e f g } \relative c' { \rhythm a } converting this to \relative { \rhythm a } would be utterly wrong since it would result in { d e f g a } instead of { d' e' f' g' a' }. So even assuming that \rhythm is a music variable does not make for a working conversion strategy. > 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. It just keeps its hands off. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user