Re: addFingering

[David Wright]

On Sat 14 Jan 2017 at 11:47:49 (+0100), Gianmaria Lari wrote:
> > \repeat unfold is not evaluated at all.  It stays a repeat expression
> > until it gets interpreted.  One reason it is implemented that way is in
> > order to keep the repeats in
> >
> > \relative c' { \repeat unfold 4 { c e g } }
> >
> > in the same octave rather than get
> >
> > \relative c' { c e g c e g c e g c e g }
> >
> > which crosses four octaves.
> 
> I understand this pragmatism. It is clear that in a piece when you write
> something like
> 
> \relative c' {
> ....somemusic.....
> \repeat unfold 4 { c e g }
> ....somemusic.....
>  }
> 
> 
> you expect to repeat {c e g} on the same octave. If you don't do it,
> \relative became a command pretty unusable.
> 
> But the side effect of this semantic choice looks very important to me.
> We're introducing a strong exceptional behavior, don't we?
> For me (this is my opinion, and of course I'm not a lilypond/musician etc.
> expert) I would prefer force the user to write
> 
> \version "2.19.54"
> {
>   \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {c e g}
> }
> 
> 
> rather than lost the orthogonality of the language.
> Just my two cents.

I'm feeling shortchanged.

What side effect and exceptional behaviour?
The orthogonality between what and what?

Cheers,
David.