Zoran Ovcin wrote
>...My problem of excersises in transposition
>should be solved by PMX. But then it should have capability of
>transposing a piece of a score, not the whole score.
This is a valid request. Unfortunately, it is not a feature that I can ever
imagine using myself. As others know well, the priority of request for a
new feature depends heavily on how useful the PMX developer (i.e., me) finds
it. I'll put it on the To-do list, and with luck I will get to it sometime
before 2010.
>...in
>transposition PMX does not make \relativeaccidentals and \transpose
>commands that resolve sharp+flat=normal and similar occurances.
I think you are wrong about that.
There have been many times in the past when people have questioned the
handling of transposition and relative-vs-absolute accidentals both in
MusiXTeX and (by direct extension) in PMX. The current implementations have
been thoroughly scrubbed, have passed all the tests of time, and are
unlikely to change. Most apparent "problems" are due to misunderstanding
the use of relative accidentals.
A user must decide at the very beginning, once and for all, whether he wants
to use relative or absolute accidentals in a particular score. If he ever
wants to transpose, he MUST use relative accidentals. In PMX, the command
is Ar . After entering that command, he must use relative accidental coding
even if he doesn't want to transpose. That means, for example, if he's in
the key of F major, with one flat in the key signature, then every time he
wants a b-natural he must enter b-sharp ("bs" in PMX). If he wants to
"re-flat" a previously "naturaled" b, he must enter b-natural ("bn" in PMX).
--Don Simons
