Don Simons wrote:
>
> I'm working on coding shifted accidentals. I would like to hear
> preferences of other users on the following matters:
>
> 1. Are vertical shifts needed as well as horizontal? I believe if I
> do put in vertical shifts, they will have to be in integral multiples
> of \internote .
>
I can't imagine what a vertical shift could be good for, except to render
faithfully a carelessly written manuscript. And what is the performer
to make of "d zfs" when the sharp is shifted down one internote?
> 2. If I do put in vertical shifts, should they come before the
> horizontal shift? (e.g cs+1-.5 would shift up one \internote and left
> by half a notehead width).
>
> As of now, I'm leaning toward vertical first, then horizontal, and
> requiring both always to be entered even if one is zero. I think
> this would avoid backward incompatibilities with existing octave and
> duration syntax. (Anyone disagree?) And the order is consistent with
> existing syntax for slurs and dots.
>
> If I do not allow vertical shifts, or allow them but don't require
> both shifts to be entered (in either order), the syntax would not be
> compatible, e.g. cs+1 now means something else.
>
The [+-]i syntax is getting to be overworked in PMX. Personally I
would prefer all horizontal shifts to be indicated by < and > with the
rule that the shift applies to the object immediately to the left, if
that makes sense, otherwise to the note itself. I.e. cs< means "c with
left-shifted sharp", cd> means what cd+0+1 means now, c< means what ce
does now. An optional unsigned number is used only when the shift is
not one unit. Then the +- syntax is kept for all vertical shifts: octave
if applied to the note, \internote if applied to the accidental or dot.
To keep things symmetric, the number after the + or - should also be
optional if it happens to be 1. By all means keep the present syntax
for backward compatibility, but don't stretch it any further.
> 3. Should shifts be cumulative? In other words, if a notehead has
> been explicitly shifted (cse or csr), now the accidental is
> automatically shifted left or right (I've fixed the error with
> left-shifted chordal notes). Should explicitly specified accidental
> shifts be relative to the already shifted position? In other
> situaltions of shifts I have not been consistent on this.
>
In practice a left-shifted note obviously MUST have a left-shifted accidental
but a right-shifted note usually should not. This may by a complicated,
inconsistent rule but it will lead to less typing and a cleaner look to
the score.
> 4. What are the maximum vertical shifts (in \internote) or horizontal
> shifts (in notehead widths) that will ever be needed?
>
As motivated above: no vertical shift will ever be needed.
Horizontal: how would you write a chord involving all the white and black
notes from middle C to the C above? Of course, three fingers have to be
deployed in the cracks between two white notes :-) Solve that one,
and that will answer the maximum number of horizontal shifts needed.
> 5. Will there ever be a need for a positive horizontal shift (i.e.,
> to the right?).
>
Reasonably no, but see answer to previous question. (Maybe you will need a
new convention that an accidental can be applied to the note to the left
of it when that note is on the right of a bunch of chordal notes.)
Hope this helps.
Dirk Laurie
