Re: Modify chord-name-engraver to call capo-handler (issue4800051)

[Wols Lists]

On 31/07/11 23:35, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 7/31/11 4:17 PM, "Wols Lists" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 31/07/11 22:00, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>>> 2011/7/31 Wols Lists <address@hidden>:
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that it's okay and is applied, I've redone my docu patch.
>>>
>>> Uploaded to Rietveld.  I see one trailing whitespace (after "By
>>> default the chords are"), also there should be two spaces after a
>>> period which ends sentence.
>>>
>>>> The snippet prints a four-bar phrase with just the standard chord
>>>> (to trap the regression that bit us this time :-), then sets the capoPitch
>>>> to print transposed chords for the next four bars, then sets capoVertical
>>>> to print chords one above the other for the last four bars.
> 
> Do we need four bars?  Why not just do three bars -- one with capoPitch '(),
> another with capoPitch set, and a third with capoVertical?
> 
> We like to get examples and regtests as simple as can be.
> 
New modified regtest attached. I've cut it down to one line, two bars
per section so six in total. (I know you want minimal, but cutting it
down to one note per section feels a bit two much, and two minims looked
naff.) The other thing is, the new regtest doesn't have N/C, which
doesn't seem to matter, but that was almost the first thing I thought
needed checking when I first saw the chord-mode documentation I based my
sample and reg-test on.

Personally I prefer my longer version, but I'm quite happy to leave it
to you which version you actually go for (this second patch should apply
*instead* *of* the first).

Cheers,
Wol

0005-Add-regression-test-for-guitar-capos.patch
Description: Text document