On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:19:36PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <[email protected]> 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-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
