Re: absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave (issue 235010043 by address@hidden)

[Paul Morris]

> On May 7, 2015, at 7:38 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> 
>> I agree about a name change since absolute doesn't really describe
>> this entry mode very well.
> 
>> What if \absolute were changed to something less, well, absolute?
>> Something along these lines, just to brainstorm a bit:
> 
>> \fixed
>> \constant
>> \consistent
>> \regular
>> \anchored
>> \nonrelative
>> \invariable
>> \steady
>> \uniform
> 
> Most of those (apart from \nonrelative) are not really an obvious
> alternative pair to \relative.  

To me there’s enough of a contrast to work.  I don’t think they need to be an 
exact/obvious pair.


> If we take an extra form, \octave seems
> like a pretty well-fitting name as long as its argument is mandatory.
> 
> That would leave us with
> 
> \relative [optional pitch] { ...
> \absolute [no pitch] { ...
> \octave [obligatory pitch] { ...
> 
> If we write about this, we then have "relative pitch entry", "absolute
> pitch entry", "octave-shifted pitch entry".
> 
> Now here is a monkey wrench I see in connection with the currently
> proposed code: any of \relative and \absolute can be nested in one
> another without affecting the other: the outer input mode will just skip
> over any of the inner modes as if it wasn't there.
> 
> The current code proposal for \absolute x' or \octave x' does not have
> that property.  Fixing that is reasonably straightforward: first you
> transpose all the music, then you do an extract-typed-music on all music
> of relative-octave-music type and transpose them right back.
> 
> Once we do that, we have a proper independent input mode of its own, and
> we no longer have something strictly equivalent to a \transpose command.

This makes sense.  (But do we really have three independent modes or just two?  
See below...)


> I'd still prefer just merging the \octave functionality into \absolute
> and have just two modes to explain.

I also prefer having just two modes to explain.  Kindly allow me to make the 
case for my proposal by discussing the others on the table:


  \relative [optional pitch] { ...
  \absolute [no pitch] { ...
  \octave [obligatory pitch] { …

The downside with this is that \absolute is really just a subset of the 
functionality of \octave, but they have different names.  \octave c {… is the 
same as \absolute {…  And one could let \octave {... be the same as \absolute 
{…  (Except for points raised about the name “octave” — it doesn’t contrast 
with “relative" and doesn’t work as well without an argument.)  So do we still 
need \absolute here?  Do we need three separate modes?  Especially since plain 
{…} gives you absolute entry, as long as it’s not embedded inside \relative 
{…}. 


  \relative [optional pitch] { ...
  \absolute [optional pitch] { …

Here we have only the two modes, but the point was made that “absolute” no 
longer describes very well what this mode has become because the pitches are no 
longer absolute but relative to the reference octave.  


It seems what’s needed is a name that describes the new entry mode, and letting 
the current \absolute just be a subset of the new mode, as it will be 
functionally:

  \relative [optional pitch] { ...
  \fixed [optional pitch] { …

Here the new mode is named something that avoids the issues with “absolute” and 
“octave”.  What was \absolute is now simply the new mode without an argument.

Another way to put this: if we were designing this from scratch, would we 
create a separate “octave” and “absolute” mode?  If we went with just two modes 
would we call the second one “absolute”?

-Paul