On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:13 PM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
That's true. I probably should have said "You type the desired spelling of the pitch you hear." > > > 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. > I'm an old user of LilyPond, and I don't really have the Scheme representation built into my understanding of the new syntax, but I love the new syntax because it makes it painless for me to burrow down into some complicated alist structure and just get the individual property I want. I realize that this is due to the Scheme structure being what it is, but I don't think about the Scheme structure any more, most of the time. I just think about the . operator being the equivalent to a member property (just as it is in Visual Basic). Losing track of the Scheme representation means I have to remind myself of it when I want to write some Scheme, but when I just want to write LilyPond I can ignore the Scheme representation. And that is convenient for me. So thanks! Carl
