Re: Issue 1110 in lilypond: Wrong octave of repetition chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax

[David Kastrup]

Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2011, 12:29:14 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> >> It is extremely helpful in writing keyboard music.
>> > 
>> > Typing aids are the kind of thing that editor macros should do rather
>> > than the music processor.
>> 
>> Here I strongly disagree.  There must be means to make LilyPond's
>> `source code' readable by people also which don't use an editor's
>> special lilypond mode.  Compare this:
> [...]
>> I'm not sure that you can beat the q notation w.r.t. readability.
>
> +1
>
> Until yesterday, I never thought that the q notation was really that useful, 
> but yesterday I had to typeset the piano part of Schubert's Nachthelle: 
> http://imslp.org/wiki/Nachthelle,_D.892_(Op.134)_(Schubert,_Franz)
>
> The right-hand part consists entirely of repeated 16th chords, played
> through 157 measures! It took me just 3 hours to write the whole piano
> part with the q notation, but I would still be writing the piece
> without it.

Write the whole thing without repetitions, then do a replace on the
region that tacks \repeat unfold x before each chord.

> And using editor macros is no real solution, because that makes later
> editing almost impossible, when you want to fix a typo in the first
> chord, which is repeated for 10 measures (i.e. you'll have 80 chords
> to fix!

You really should invest the time to get acquainted with your editor.
I do quite more complicated things with it than that.

It is not complicated to write something like
C-x ( <c, e g> C-u 80 C-x ) and get
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>
<c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g> <c, e g>

Ta-dah.  80 new chords.  Likely faster to type than \repeat unfold 80,
but the latter is faster to read and you don't need to watch your
octave.  Because somebody bothered getting \relative to do the right
thing here instead of the simple thing.

> and if you miss fixing one of them, good luck finding the wrong one in
> the sea of <...>!).

When you can't handle working with your editor, at least configure
point-and-click, and then you'll be finding the wrong one easily.

> FWIW, I don't think it's really worth to have q work through nested
> relative.  That's simply unsupported (and might be documented as
> such).

Uh, red herring?  That's not what this bug report was about.

-- 
David Kastrup