|
On 03/10/2013 03:50 AM, David Kastrup
wrote:
The problem I have with talking much about \relative f is that f seems
arbitrary. However, maybe an explanation linking both of these concepts
and explaining how f is arrived at will allow both views to coexist.
That's what I was trying to get at with the second suggestion I was
making: "Note that when a pitch is written
relative to f, the relative and absolute representations of the note
are
the same."
You could even make this a stronger statement: "The reference pitch
f was chosen because notes written relative to f have the same
representation as their absolute pitch."
Quite unlikely. This conversion rule does not touch code it does not
understand.
That's certainly believable -- but the problem is that "{ \rhythm g
}" looks locally like something that it actually does understand, as
it looks like just a use of a music variable followed by a pitch.
To understand that it doesn't understand that, it would have to do
at least enough parsing of the definition of \rhythm in order to
determine that it is a scheme function that takes a single argument.
Does it do that? I don't know.
Evan
|