Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Kieren MacMillan <[email protected]> >> To: David Nalesnik <[email protected]> >> Cc: Lilypond-User Mailing List <[email protected]> >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 10:22:15 -0400 >> Subject: Re: Suggestion to make sharps and flats persistent >> Hi David, >> >> > But minor-mode music is often a conglomeration of the "forms" of the >> > minor scale which makes them of limited separate utility. Nothing is >> > in "harmonic minor." Notating something in minor by J. S. Bach could >> > be terrifying. >> >> Oh, I totally agree with "terrifying" (and, in my opinion, unhelpful). =) >> I’m just pointing out that it’s not difficult to figure out how to make > it work for people who don’t mind living in terror. >> > > But if we support terrifying modes, then we have to deal with all of the > issues that come fom people having difficulty with terrifying modes. > > I'm a firm believer in the simple statement that in LilyPond, you type the > pitch you hear,
Well, no. There are enharmonics. The same pitch you hear has different spellings for writing. > and the software is responsible for getting the display correct > (strictly speaking, this means that I should oppose relative mode, > although I admit I'm inconsistent here). > Supporting difficult syntax is harder stil -- it'a an ongoing expense. > That's why I'm so appreciative of David K's work to simplify and > rationalize our syntax so it (almost) always works the way one thinks it > should. Anecdote: in January there was the note typesetting conference in Salzburg and I typed up some example along the lines of \override NoteHead.color = #red and then Han-Wen interrupted (or took me aside afterwards or something, I don't quite remember) and said that I needed to write \override NoteHead color = #red instead. LilyPond actual still does accept that syntax for compatibility reasons. But since things like NoteHead.color have now gained the Scheme representation of #'(NoteHead color) and a whole number of user-level functions make use of that, it completely threw me for a loop to get the suggestion of writing something that no longer fits the way I have come to think about NoteHead.color : not as some arbitrary syntax but something conveying a meaning also represented in Scheme. I wonder for how many other old users of LilyPond these changes in meaning that have become the natural view for me (and hopefully new users) just did not happen since a whole lot of the old syntax of LilyPond continues to work well enough without viewing it in terms of structuring concepts that came after the fact. -- David Kastrup
