Re: Possible feature request for 'q' shorthand or tie syntax

[David Kastrup]

Gilles <address@hidden> writes:

>> You noticed yourself that this does not work well with chords, but it
>> also does not play overly well with \relative if you write \av c' for
>> example.
>
> In the \samePitch function, i try to play with the property
> 'to-relative-callback. It seems to work also here but of course, it is
> heavier -:(  (see below )

Yes.  In this kind of situation, it is probably the simplest way out.
If you use \displayLilyMusic _after_ applying \relative to such an
expression, you would not notice the difference...

> For chords, is it conceivable to imagine a ly:pitches? function, (so
> for chords), that would be compatible in #{ #}, in the same way
> ly:pitch? is.  And even, an ly:pitch?-or-ly:pitches? function for
> notes and chords ?  (well, probably with better names ...)

I guess you overestimate the role of ly:pitch? here.  It basically is a
predicate that the parser applies to basic LilyPond syntax entities to
figure out whether to permit them into the function.

Now it is true that there is a bit of disambiguation going on as well,
and it is actually true that in current master, ly:pitch? is indeed
special-cased, meaning you can't mix it with other predicates.  But that
is slated to go.  So if you want to accept note-or-chord, just accept a
ly:music? expression and go from there, looking at its being note or
chord.

-- 
David Kastrup