Re: question about minor + fourth

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 2016-08-28 15:56 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> 2016-08-28 15:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>>> ;; Question
>>>>> ;; why this mapping? Obviously `text' selects from this list, but why? 
>>>>> --harm
>>>>>            (texts
>>>>>              (map
>>>>>                (lambda (x) (ly:music-property x 'text))
>>>>>                (extract-typed-music m 'text-script-event)))
>>>>>            (text (if (null? texts) #f (if omit-root (car texts) texts))))
>>>>>       (cons (if omit-root (cdr normalized) normalized) text)))
>>>>
>>>> Hm?  This looks for text scripts and takes the first one (if any) if
>>>> omit-root is set (because of available rest arguments) or otherwise all
>>>> scripts.
>>>
>>> Well, I used some "newer" features like `extract-typed-music' to
>>> rewrite the code from chord-name.scm, keeping all the original's
>>> functionality.
>>> But why is this functionality there at all?
>>
>> Which functionality?
>>
>>> In other words: I can't imagine a use-case where it matters.
>>
>> Where what matters?  What exactly in the code and/or the arguments it
>> interprets seems strange or (currently?) unused to you?
>
> Sorry, not being exact enough.

Well, at least not for getting additional input where one could work out
the problem in a manner where you feel confident about what to do.  And
that seems like the most likely course leading to changes.  At the
current point of time, I can pretty much follow what the code does but
without much of a clue how that fits into what needs to be done (or
might need to be done).  So if you have a problem with what the code
does, I'm pretty sure I can fill in any blanks as long as I know what
the blanks are.  But with regard to what we would _want_ it to do, I'd
need quite a bit more work.

And if it is I who invests that work, this is likely to end up in a bit
of "not invented here" syndrome where I form an opinion what to do that
is not particularly compatible with anybody else's.

>> Particularly if we want to replace this interface with a scheme function
>> (in LilyPond syntax) we need to figure out which parts of it are not
>> likely to see use anyway.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'll do some more research and try to clear my thoughts, before coming
> back to this topic.

That would be great.

-- 
David Kastrup