Kaj Persson <address@hidden> writes:
So the result you show printed is _exactly_ the result according to
my explanation, yet you say it isn't, possibly because of glossing
over half of the explanation, possibly because of misunderstanding
some part of the explanation.
Which is it?
You gave the explaination above at "since the tag isn't relevant for
quoting." I thought, that tags always change the source, but obviously
I was wrong.
So let's see when I bothered mentioning it. In my first reply I wrote:
That being said, tags are a mechanism for manipulating input and
quotes are a mechanism for recording input and replaying the
recorded results (which no longer are input put streams of events).
So all of your tag manipulations need to be done by the time you use
\addQuote . Maybe you don't need quotes here but rather
straightforward music variables: those contain the input and are
still susceptible to tag manipulations.
In my second reply I wrote:
>
> \addQuote "Q" { \Ma \Mb \Mc \tag #'X \Mb \Md }
The tag here is ineffective since it is inside of the quote.
So I gave the information two times rather explicitly and still had to
take your complex example apart in the third answer before you actually
considered it.
Since I already explained this in detail in the first reply, it seems
like a total waste of effort when you express your complete surprise
that things work the way I already explained in the first reply. Or
actually, that the _result_ is the way I explained it. Because "I
thought, that tags always change the source, but obviously I was wrong."
rather suggests that you did not actually consider thinking about the
explanation.
Particularly in the light of that, you should aim to provide smaller
examples in future as your mode of learning seems to be focused
_completely_ on looking at examples _without_ considering explanations.
So since the dissemination of an example is _mandatory_ for your
learning, you really should aim to make at least this step as painless
as possible for helpers.