Re: Changing voice order...

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm not sure if this is a language problem, or an attitude problem.
> Because it seems like you are coming to the opposite interpretation of what
> I say, despite me being very detailed in my explanation.
>
>
> Let's start with the main point:
>
> THE VERTICAL ORDER OF NOTES ON THE PAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORDER OF
> THE VOICES WITHIN THE << // // // >> CONSTRUCT, OR WHAT THE VOICE NAMES ARE
> CALLED
>
> Do you agree with that?  You should, since it is true.

No, I don't agree with it. 

Then you are being obstinate.  

A statement of fact, and you don't agree with it.  

What are we to do with such childish behavior?

 

If you cannot distinguish "high correlation
though not 100%" from "no correlation", I don't see a point in
continuing.  

The definition of << // // // >> behaves the same way 100% of the time.

Let's name the voices to reflect what it does with them:  set the default stem direction and indentation.  

Not vertical voice order on the staff.

By trying to name voices of << // // // >> by vertical voice order on the staff, we introduce confusion, since that isn't what << // // // >> does.

 

The reason the various shifts and stem directions are
assigned in the manner and order they are is because this tends to
minimize collisions for the _customary_ note order within voice
stacking.  It's not arbitrary at all, so "nothing to do with" just is
plain wrong.

Except that there seems to be a vast disagreement about what this order is or should be, and this tends to maximize confusion.

My statement was about the relationship between voices in << // // // >> and their vertical position on the page, which is that there isn't any.  And it is still true, despite the fact that you don't enjoy the implications.

I understand that we are trying to make the syntax as close to typical usage as possible.

However, you don't seem to understand that choosing a naming convention that implies one thing, yet does another, is not a good user interface.  

Even if the convention is 90% right, that makes working the remaining 10% of cases almost as much of a chore as carrying on a conversation with you.

We can get it 100% right, so why not do it?

Cheers, 

David Elaine Alt

415 . 341 .4954                                           "Confusion is highly underrated"

address@hidden

self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-