Re: Auto-transposition

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

Subject: Re: Re: Auto-transposition

 

By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming 2.20, don't forget to mention about \fixed!

   /Mats

I volunteered to do this, so I will make sure to work on describing this feature.

 

 > I don't think there is a clear advantage to use relative vs absolute.

I think there are clear advantages and disadvantages to both. The main problem I see is the insistence (implicit in the documentation) that relative mode is the best for newbies to start with, and the volume of list posts from newbies having problems with relative mode makes it clear that that is not true. Perhaps if the documentation were make crystal clear, with \resetRelativeOctave used in every example, etc., then I could feel comfortable backing down from my crusade to try to save newbies from the pitfalls we have [unintentionally] laid for them.

 

Best,

Kieren.

This is, in part, a result of our documentation being so granular.

Putting it another way: I doubt that many of the issues with \relative rear their heads in the examples in the docs. 

A discussion of the pros and cons of each method with examples could be appropriate in perhaps the LM, or in http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/writing-pitches

Adding \resetRelativeOctave *everywhere* is not consistent with the MWE nature of the examples, and is probably not needed in most cases, since it (seems to me) makes sense to use it at the start of a new phrase, or anywhere where the content is not dependent upon what came before.   Whereas, most doc examples consists of a single, or even a partial, phrase.

I certainly don't think it is necessary that all examples should use the same mode of note entry.  It might be good to start revising examples where using \fixed organically makes more sense.

A most useful approach (but probably prohibitively laborious way?) might be to add the ability to toggle the docs dynamically to show the example in either \relative or \fixed. 

> I was thinking more along the lines of (note this is NOT TESTED)
>
> phrase = { c f d g }
>
> \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase }

Yes, that's exactly the problem with putting \relative around
constructions rather than the variables themselves, illustrated
by "mover".

Since \relative { } is an absolute construct, this is easily solved by:

phrase = \relative c' { c f d g }
\relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase }

David Elaine Alt

415 . 341 .4954                                           "Confusion is highly underrated"

address@hidden

skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-