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. However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an
absolute pitch in the first place.
Maybe we must work on the intent of \relative first.
Just my 2 cents.
Best regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
