Re: Transposing in modes??

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

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