Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes:
> On 21/05/15 07:36, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
>> I'm proposing to push a \fixed c' {} that always takes a reference
>> pitch, as in the current patch.
>
> So the behaviour is different from \relative, which doesn't have to
> have a reference pitch. :-(
>>
>> It costs nothing to leave \absolute in place for those who have
>> learned it, but it is simplest to document instead the equivalent
>> \fixed c {...}.
>>
>> That gives us the benefit of less typing and keeps options open
>> for behavior of \fixed if we skip the reference pitch.
>>
> But it probably means more code, and more learning ... (and more
> confusion for users)
We've been going in circles over the sensible arguments already, so how
about not adding non-sensical ones? "it probably means more code"?
What kind of wishy-washy argument is that? "more learning"? How is
that even applicable for any new _optional_ feature, and how does it
differ from any other new optional feature and how would that differ
from any _other_ implementation of this feature?
> If \fixed takes an optional (defaults to c') reference pitch then the
> underlying code will be the same.
"defaults to c'"? So that \absolute { ... } and \fixed { ... } would be
one octave apart? That's going to decrease confusion?
Seriously.
I don't think that this is in line for further arguments. If at all,
it's up for a vote. The arguments are trotted out well enough already,
it's just the conclusions that differ.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
