Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
No, it wouldn't, since \sequential music embedded into relative music becomes relative. Transposed music, in contrast, is both impervious as well as transparent to \relative surrounding it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
