Olivier Biot <olivier.b...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, <nothingwaver...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Examples:
>
> 1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, }
>
> These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are
> redundant here.
> They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error
> outside of \relative blocks.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Hmmm... I'd use the @ sign as a prefix, not as a suffix, as in:
>
> { c4 c' @c'' @c, }
>
> However, more fundamentally, I think the entire discussion relates to
> the intent of \relative and the current use seen by the LiliPond
> community.
>
> I'd rather see \relative { @c4 c' c'' c, } than \relative { c4 c' c''
> c, } in cases when the first pitch is supposed / expected to be an
> absolute pitch.
What else is it supposed to be?
> However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an
> absolute pitch in the first place.
It can be relative to f if we want to. That adds the least amount of
information to the first pitch.
> Maybe we must work on the intent of \relative first.
I have a hard time imagining what that is supposed to mean if we assume
that we haven't been doing it so far.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
