At 13:39 on 31 Aug 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from > insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on > specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How > is \followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or > la-la-la from \relative pitch? The difference is that > \followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement, > when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified > independently, it would be very simple. The initial impulse for the > negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing > could and should be done, is simple laziness.
You seem to misunderstand how open source software development works. It is not laziness for someone to not spend time on a feature that they have no need for. > I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and > make it available to any who are interested. Please post this magic script so we can see how your solution is implemented. > I just get tired > of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this > irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option > in lilypond. The decision does the coders no credit. Regards, daveA I have just read through most of this thread again, and the only insults I find come from you. -- Mark Knoop _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
