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

[Simon Albrecht]

Hello,

I’d also vote for the three-ways distinction relative/absolute/octave as 
put by Trevor.

Am 06.05.2015 um 20:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > > Probably the best name is \octave, which was used for something
> > > similar
> > > until version 0.1.19
> > >
> > >      \octave c'' {c4 e g c e g c'1}
> > Sounds OK for me.
> Huh.  I like the contrast \relative/\absolute better.  Particularly,
> I like a sensible default when one leaves off the pitch.
>
> Neither \octave { bes, c d e f } nor \octave c { c' bes as g } or
> \octave c'' { c' bes as g } seem particularly convincing.
With octave, I’d consider it most intuitive/easy to use to
– only allow octaves of c in the first argument
– have it default to \octave c { … } (which would be equivalent to 
absolute).
Do I get that right?
>    I like
> \absolute { bes, c d e f } \absolute c { c; bes as g } \absolute c'' {
> c' bes as g } better.
>
> The name \octave fits nice verbally when the first note (even better,
> all notes) can be entered without octave mark.  However, that is not
> generally the case.
How does that matter? Off the top of my head, I would interpret \octave 
as a command to set the ‘reference octave’ for a music expression. 
You’re right, the form \octave {} without first argument (as put above) 
isn’t straightforward to read, it would require being used to it. 
Perhaps it’s easier to use \absolute in that case.
> One functional point of the original \absolute is that of being
> impervious to enclosing \relative statements.  \octave does not have
> this connotation: it's easier to wonder with "\octave" how it will
> interact/combine with \relative.
I would expect it to be exactly as impervious as absolute. If this is 
documented clearly, I see no grounds for ambiguity.

Yours, Simon