Re: "inline" (scoped) definitions?

[Kieren Richard MacMillan]

Hello, Paul:

> How do your inner definitions help this?  Example?

Consider the 'A' section from my "Upside-Down Rag" (slightly simplified 
for this example), which is of the form abac:

rh = \notes \relative c'
{
    e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 a,~
    a4~ a16  <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <bf df bf'>
    <a c a'> <f a f'> <g b g'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8 fs16( f)
    e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 g,~
    g4~ g8  <a cs a'>16 <b! b'!>
    <c fs c'>( <a a'>-.) <fs fs'> <d fs d'>~ <d fs d'> <e e'> <fs c' 
fs> <a a'>
    <g b g'>4~ <g b g'>8  fs'16( f)
    e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 a,~
    a4~ a16  <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <bf df bf'>
    <a c a'> <f a f'> <g b g'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8  <e e'>16 <d d'>
    <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <e e'>( <d d'>-.) <e e'>
    <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <c e c'>
    <a c a'> <c e c'> <b d b'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8 fs16( f)
}

With an "inline definition", I could do this:

rh = \notes \relative c'
{
    {
        e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 a,~
        a4~ a16  <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <bf df bf'>
        <a c a'> <f a f'> <g b g'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
        <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8
    } == secOne
    fs16( f) e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 g,~
    g4~ g8  <a cs a'>16 <b! b'!>
    <c fs c'>( <a a'>-.) <fs fs'> <d fs d'>~ <d fs d'> <e e'> <fs c' 
fs> <a a'>
    <g b g'>4~ <g b g'>8  fs'16( f)
    \secOne
    <e e'>16 <d d'> <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <e e'>( <d 
d'>-.) <e e'>
    <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <c e c'>
    <a c a'> <c e c'> <b d b'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8 fs16( f)
}

Currently, it would have to be:

secOne = \notes
{
    e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 a,~
    a4~ a16  <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <bf df bf'>
    <a c a'> <f a f'> <g b g'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8
}

rh = \notes \relative c'
{
    \secOne
    fs16( f) e16 g,8 e'16 g,8 e'16 g,~
    g4~ g8  <a cs a'>16 <b! b'!>
    <c fs c'>( <a a'>-.) <fs fs'> <d fs d'>~ <d fs d'> <e e'> <fs c' 
fs> <a a'>
    <g b g'>4~ <g b g'>8  fs'16( f)
    \secOne
    <e e'>16 <d d'> <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <e e'>( <d 
d'>-.) <e e'>
    <c c'> <e e'> <d d'> <c c'>~ <c c'> <c e c'>( <b d b'>-.) <c e c'>
    <a c a'> <c e c'> <b d b'> <a c a'>~ <a c a'> <d f d'> <b f' b>8
    <c e c'>4~ <c e c'>8 fs16( f)
}

In this small an example, it may not seem like that big a deal, but 
with a larger set of variables (including tweaks, etc.), having all the 
definitions up in a lump above the main note block -- and therefore, by 
definition, *out of chronological order* -- might not be the best 
organization.

Hope this makes it clearer what I mean*.
Kieren.

* not that it means it's any more correct or desirable!  ;-)