[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?
From: |
Valentin Villenave |
Subject: |
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"? |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:56:12 +0100 |
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Neil Puttock <address@hidden> wrote:
> But that's why it's in the parser; you can't have music functions with
> optional arguments (and I doubt that's going to change any time soon).
Hm, I forgot about that. We already encountered the same problem when
Reinhold rewrote the \tempo command, for instance.
*sigh* This is one of those limitations that make me want to bang my
head against a wall. Do you think this could deserve a feature request
on the tracker?
> I'm sure it's negligible (if you can wait about ten minutes I'll check
> and report back), since all the work would be done by an exported
> function which is a wrapper for to_relative_octave ().
Well, it's past two hours now so I guess it *does* affect speed after all :)
Cheers,
Valentin
- why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Mark Polesky, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Graham Percival, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, David Kastrup, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Valentin Villenave, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Graham Percival, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?,
Valentin Villenave <=
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Neil Puttock, 2009/12/15
- Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, Valentin Villenave, 2009/12/15
Re: why recommend \relative to take a "c"?, James Bailey, 2009/12/15