Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals

[Patrick McCarty]

On 2009-08-29, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > 
> > I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
> > part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
> > those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
> > exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
> > 
> > HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
> > in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
> > perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
> > letting them get on with their work.
> 
> I wrote a sed script that does the job some time ago.  To implement
> \followKeySignature would be much easier than the opponents imagine.
> I do not find it confusing to any degree, and it saves typing, and
> it makes sense to me because it makes the input more similar
> to the notation.  Most would agree on the desirability of that,
> or does anyone think that it would be good to get rid of barchecks?
> But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition.
> You have shouted down the users, but convinced none.  Why?  Because
> you are wrong.  Regards, daveA

I don't think \followKeySignature would be very useful.  What if you
took away the key signature?  Then you would be left with the wrong
pitches in your LilyPond code.

IMO, key signatures are merely a convenience that (sometimes) make
music notation easier to read.  If the key is D major, and I want an
F-sharp, I would type `fis' because that *is* the correct note.  I'm
not thinking about the key signature.  Typing `f' in order to follow
the key signature creates conflict in my mind: `f' is always an
F-natural, and nothing else.


-Patrick