Hi Wol,
> Those of us who only use \relative (just me?) don't have any problems with
> cut-n-paste. Or is it just that my workflow is more likely to use "\repeat
> unfold"?
Let’s say you’re writing a piece in sonata form (or even just engraving an
existing one!).
You want to [re]use mm. 100-120, mm. 146-152, and mm. 190–203 from the
exposition in the recapitulation.
Good luck pulling those out and plopping them down without doing extra work
(octave checks, multiple compilations).
Now… you compile [in relative mode] and realize you missed a 16-measure chunk.
You try to add the new music, but forget what octave the relative mode is
currently in.
ugh I’ve got a headache just thinking about it. LOL
> I've got no problem with \keyed, but there is a fly in the ointment here ...
> \keyed a \minor { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }
> Now is that a g-natural or g-sharp? Likewise the f.
Details, details… ;)
\keyed #'(a bf css d e f gs) { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }
Then a little sugar lets you do something like
<pseudo>
kierenskey = #'(a bf css d e f gs)
\keyed \kierenskey { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }
<\pseudo>
Look… I’m not recommending this — to me, it all sounds just as painful as
\relative — but I have yet to be convinced that a rational implementation of it
would be rocket-science-or-greater.
Cheers,
Kieren.
