Re: What is the problem with "\relative"? (Was: Do we really offer the future?)

[Ali Cuota]

Hello,

I am only a user and very thankfull, both for ly and for relative. I
would have had really thought much longer about ly if relative had not
be available. Now, I understand the pro of absolute, and I think the
solution is in the editors functionalities. If, let say Frescobaldi,
would offer a preprocessor to translate a block from relative to
absolute, this would be done. Relative is easy to write, absolute easy
to read, so why choose? Both is better...

Cheers,

Francois

2015-04-25 5:34 GMT-05:00, Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:
> Am 25.04.2015 um 00:38 schrieb Thomas Morley:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm a little late to the party...
>>
>> One very annoying thing about \relative is when you want to use
>> music-functions catching some music doing something with it.
>>
>> Here the less complex function I could think of, returning different
>> results for absolute and relative.
>> (It's only a show-case, the functionality could be achieved easily
>> with other predefined commands, but I hope you'll get the point.)
>>
>> repeat-note =
>> #(define-music-function (parser location music)(ly:music?)
>>    (make-sequential-music (list music (ly:music-deep-copy music))))
>>
>> \absolute { c'1 \repeat-note c'' }
>> \relative c' { c \repeat-note c'1 }
> Well, either we require doing
>
> \version "2.19.17"
>
> repeat-abs-note =
> #(define-music-function (parser location music)(ly:music?)
>     (let ((music #{ \absolute $music #}))
>       (make-sequential-music (list music (ly:music-deep-copy music)))))
>
> \absolute { c'1 \repeat-abs-note c'' }
> \relative c' { c \repeat-abs-note c''1 }
>
> or we consider this a bug in (or enhancement request to)
> (ly:music-deep-copy), towards which I’m inclined.
>
> Yours, Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>