bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Issue 1110 in lilypond: Wrong octave of repetition chord with \relat

 From: lilypond Subject: Re: Issue 1110 in lilypond: Wrong octave of repetition chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:29:23 +0000

```
```
Comment #32 on issue 1110 by address@hidden: Wrong octave of repetition chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax
```http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110

```
The dilemma basically is that "last chord" is not well-defined. \relative has an order for "last pitch" that it follows. The parser has an order for "last default duration" that it follows. Both are different but thankfully orthogonal. "last chord" is not. It gets garbled when \relative does not know which chords belong together, so it makes sense to define "last chord" like \relative does. Unfortunately we don't know when and whether at all \relative will run on the material, so a \relative-only answer to the order is not going to fly.
```
```
However, time order (like shown with parallel music which is _not_ two voices) is too different from what LilyPond does elsewhere to make much sense. It would be very easy to implement.
```
Is
input/regression/repeat-tremolo-chord-rep.ly
a corner case?  We have here
\relative c' {
<c e g>1
\repeat tremolo 4 q16
\repeat tremolo 4 { q16 }
\repeat tremolo 4 { c16 q16 }
}
```
Before 2240,we _had_to involve the parser in the "last chord" concept because only the parser had the information which EventChord would even count as a chord. Personally, I think a single run through the whole score when iteration _starts_ is probably the most useful place. Forcing the user to be explicit by doing last chord substitution when called with a command is even more predictable, but inconvenient.
```

```