On 08/07/2011 02:14 PM, Volker Paul wrote:
> The task is not to put a chord INTO a variable, but to get it FROM a
> variable. \chordmode's argument should be a variable (as in my
> example), and \chordmode should generate its output, a chord, from
> this variable.
I think this, and the earlier question about repeats, stem from the same
problem.
LilyPond is not a macro language. Languages like TeX and the C
preprocessor are, and that sets some people’s expectations:
#define FOO bar
x = FOO( y ) // becomes x = bar( y )
FOO = f( y ) // becomes bar = f( y )
In LilyPond, the values are computed.
v = { c }
creates a music object with a sequence of one quarter(?) note of pitch
c, and stores it in the variable v. It does *not* store the notation
string “{ c }” in the variable. Similarly, the earlier question about
unfolding a relative repeat: the music object is a series of notes of
specific pitches, and unfolding the repeat repeats those notes, not the
notation (with its relative pitch notation).
> Then I must ask the other way:
> Why is the c in the chord one octave higher?
> I.e., why is the c in \chordmode { c } interpreted as c'?
That has bugged me too, and I have in some pieces used commas all over
the place to bring the pitches down. Oh, well.
> Is there such a thing as forcing a mode change when READING the
> variable?
Yes. This is the only time the mode is asserted; for what you want, you
need:
v = \chordmode{ c }
\v
> Or is there another function that builds a chord on a note stored in
> a variable?
I suspect you’ll need to get into Scheme to perform that kind of alchemy.
~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Those who learn from history are doomed to become cynics.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
