Re: absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave (issue 235010043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

"Keith OHara" <address@hidden> writes:

> The two functions \fixed and \relative each convert user input into
> absolute pitches.

So does \absolute.  Which was its primary raison d'être.

> \relative applies octave marks relative to the previous pitch; \fixed
> adds octave marks to those of a fixed pitch.
>
> The primary function of the music-function \absolute is to write a
> stretch of absolute pitches within \relative, but the primary function
> of \fixed will be to choose the fixed octave from which entered octave
> marks count.

There is no difference.

> I switched the name in the patch from \absolute to \fixed when I made
> the function skip over any enclosed \relative section.  The docs say
> the starting pitch in \relative is an absolute pitch, and I didn't
> want to start making the distinction of "absolute octaves" versus "the
> octave established by the enclosing absolute"

\absolute x'' would be absolute input mode with a different octave, not
transposed absolute mode.

> so I made the change
> \absolute c'' {c e g \relative c, {c e g} } => c''4 e'' g'' c' e' g'
> \fixed c'' {c e g \relative c, {c e g} } => c''4 e'' g'' c, e, g,

That does not make sense at all.  Just because your first implementation
of \absolute did something different (and I suggested to change that)
does not mean that fixing its behavior requires changing its name.
There is no precedent of \absolute c'' being associated with anything
else merely because it showed different behavior in the first review.

> For some reason I find the word 'fixed' easier to type than 'absolute'

At least _this_ reason is not absurd.  It's not compelling to me,
however, so I'd prefer to see a vote on it.

-- 
David Kastrup