Re: New feature suggestion

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On Aug 26, 2014, at 21:56 , David Nalesnik <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Dan Eble <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Knute Snortum <ksnortum <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Adding an "n" modifier isn't saying that C Sharp is C Natural, it's an
>> > assertion.  "Yes, I really mean natural.  No, I didn't just forget the
>> > sharp."
>> 
>> That sounds like a benefit, but I would think that people who value
>> "cn" for that reason would prefer a language definition that did not
>> include plain "c", so that Lilypond would not even produce output
>> based on such an error.
>> 
>> 
>> The "cn" would be used presumably to reflect the fact that the
>> output will have a natural sign.  Requiring that C in C major be
>> notated as "cn"--if I'm understanding you correctly--doesn't make
>> sense.
>> 
>> —David
>
> OK, but my general point is the same.  If “x” and “xn” are not
> intended to be used interchangeably, involving the computer will be
> more successful than continuing to rely on the human alone to detect
> mistakes.

There are no plans on making x and xn distinguishable in any manner
that would engage the attention of LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup