Re: accidentals - double, editorial and invisible

[Rune Zedeler]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> I wonder whether using counts is the right solution: it doesn't
> reflect typesetting (who ever uses !!!!! ?), nor musical meaning. It
> seems like a quick hack. Can't we make up something neater for the
> internal presentation?

Good point. Though, I don't have any ideas of a better representation.
We need to be able to represent 7 different possibilities:

- Auto-accidentals
- no accidentals
- #
- (#)
- n#
- (n)#
- (n#)

Representing theese seven possibilities with only 2 properties (with '() 
meaning "auto-accidentals") seems quite effective to me. But I admit 
that the two counts do not reflect the musical meaning at all.
Though, I do think that they represent the notation quite closely - 
especially when thinking about how the auto-accidentals-algorithm works: 
It tries some different ways to typeset accidentals and cautionaries - 
and uses the one(s) that gives the highest number of 
accidentals/cautionaries.
Hence, if the algorithm finds out that it needs two cautionaries and one 
accidentals (as is the case for the cis in the good old "cisis1 | 
cis"-example) then the result is (n)#.

Any ideas, anyone?


> > > probably something like ges-\editorialSharp.  One could use a scheme
> > > function or a special Performer to select which accidentals to use.
> >
> > Hmmm, Theese accidentals would not transpose, would they?
>
>
> depends on how they are implemented/stored.

If they transpose then I don't like the name \editorialSharp. You need 
to look both at the main note (g) and the sript (editorialSharp) to find 
out that the note in question is a gis ans should be transposed as such.



> The idea is that each Accidental grob prints only one #, natural or
> b. Then accidental-placement figures out how to align them. This makes
> it possible to use
>
>    natural #
>
> in chords, and optionally place them like
>
>    natural  #
>   (natural)   b
>    natural  #

Oh. How about (n#)? Wouldn't

  n #
 (n   b)
  n #

look rather stupid?

-Rune