On 02/08/2013 09:03 PM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
I agree it needs an explanatory diagram at hand and it also calls for a possibility to have a numeric entry for specifying which key(s) to use for which note. But through the years I've learned that coming back with these kind of global things later will cause you headaches, because then there will be even more legacy around. Having a top-level entry into the graphs and procedures gives the possibility to fill it in later, redesigning is a problem.
I'm not sure what the issue is here though -- you already have a clear internal representation of the keys, the issue is translating that into numbers instead of key-names.
Is it really a problem to implement that translation later rather than sooner, given that the only difference between the numerical and key-name diagrams will be the presence of numbers rather than key-names?
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
