Sorry to delve into this a bit late, but an earlier point in this ongoing thread is relevant to work currently on my desk :)
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:20:28 +0100 David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > flute_phrase01 = > > flute_phrase02 = > > > > or similar. > > When would you ever want to do that? Actually, I've got two use cases for this loaded in my editor right now. The first (an older, ongoing project) is a set of about 150 simple etudes. I can use--and am using--Roman numerals. It feels like a little bit of a cludge, but it works. The second is a bit more involved. I'm writing a set of accuracy training exercises that involve simple permutations of chromatic trichords (e.g., changes of order, and octave shifts). I'm currently using Roman numerals because there is no reasonable concise, descriptive name of each permutation that does not involve enumeration, and Arabic numbers are out of the question. So I have a legend at the top of each include file describing what my nomenclature means: % Trichord Variable Names % 012: A % 013: B % 014: C % 015: D % 016: E % 024: F % 025: G % 026: H % 027: I % 036: J % 037: K % 048: L % % Permutations: % Aa, Ab, Ac, Ad, etc. % % Permutation Variations: % AaI, AaII, AaIII, etc. % % Respellings (enharmonic respelling for legibility): % AaIi, AaIii, AaIiii, etc. Now, yes, I'm sure that with a handful of hours of trying to learn Scheme, I could probably find a way to do this that doesn't involve so many lines of Lilypond code, but my free time to work on this particular project is in half-hours here and there: learning enough scheme to do this is impractical. So in the meantime, I basically have to give each three-note motive a variable with a coded name that allows sufficient differentiation and can be searched reasonably easily. Variables with Arabic numerals would make these far more descriptive and easier to read! Such as, for instance, trichord (0,1,6), in the form and ordering of (0,11,5), enharmonic spelling version "c": \016_0e5-c ...instead of: \EbIIiii ...which is oblique and obnoxious to read. (And which I have to remind myself not to read as "E-flat...er...major? Minor? Huh?") Again, programming with scheme is almost definitely the correct--or at least most efficient and elegant--approach. But for reasons of time management for a freelance performer with next to zero programming experience, the preparatory study requirements make this superior approach non-pragmatic. Best, Josiah _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
