"Robin Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [to the list this time]
>> > 6) Stacked 2xN (Jazz) or "/" sepearated alterations. >> >> What do you mean by this? > I suspect this is what the Jazz style is supposed to do, but > doesn't. Ok, thanks. > k. i guess it's not too hard to implement never showing noX, but I do think > that if someone were to provide a chord with a noX, even in Jazz or > American, that they lily should show what they actually input. I can't see > much harm in requiring all notes in the chord. Ok. >> What would you suggest? I do think we need both, ie, a chord with an >> extra added base note (/+), and an inversion (/)? >> > I think what disturbs me about the function as implemented is that the > inversion notation drops tones from the chord. I think it's just a musical theory vs (guitar) chord name convention thing. AFAIK, an inversion is just that, it inverses the layout of the chord. But I don't have a clue whether this is useful to anyone, and I would be fine with: > Suggestion for discussion: support /+ as given for backward > compatibility, [No, we don't do backward compatibility,] but > change "/" to work the same as "/+" and provide "/-" for > people who *really* want to do that. this would be fine, esp. if it's more useful. Having said that, this is a minor issue, whether to type /+ or /? >> [banter examples] > > Yes. That makes perfect sense. Thanks. Ok. Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
