[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Transposing in modes??
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: Transposing in modes?? |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:59:00 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) |
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Completely different question: I wanted to convert all this into a proper
music function. In the course, I found that the signature parsing is
less-than-elegant. In particular, there are only a handful permitted
signatures, which are hard-coded, such as "scm-scm-music". I gather that
this is needed in order to use flex/bison, but the different combinations
of up to, say, 5 parameters could at least be generated, no?
Yes, but we do it on demand .. :)
Since we also allow \markup as a separate argument type, generating all
combinations quickly runs out of hand. In addition, it encourages people
to use different ordering of arguments.
Which ones are you missing?
In other words, would you gurus of lily look kindly upon an effort to
simplify the signature parsing?
I also found out -- the hard way -- that a definition like
(def-music-function blabla (parser location key music)
(ly:pitch? ly:music?) (...))
gets a signature "scm-music", which is wrong. Of course, I want to call
this function like in this manner:
\blabla fis \relative c' { c d e f g }
Is my idea faulty?
Yes. You want a signature of music-music. LilyPond will interpret fis as
a short for fis4, a note (technically: an EventChord)
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen