At 10:06 22/10/2003 +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I certainly recognize the problem of having to correct a few octave mistakes when entering a score, but I think the general idea of relative mode is so intuitive that I don't have to spend much time and effort while typing in the music.
You're obviously better at this than I am :-)
However, you are certainly not alone, since a new octave check feature was added in version 2.0 of LilyPond, see http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/Octave-check.html
It's nice, but it's only a control feature. I thought more of some kind of making entry more explicit.
Do you have any concrete suggestion for how this should be done otherwise? I guess you still don't want to type c d' e' f' g' a' b' c' for an ordinary scale, so we would need some other input symbol to mean "closest upwards" and "closest downwards".
I should have thought of this. Trickier than it seems, as Lilypond already
uses almost all printable glyphs, and I don't know it well enough to know whether
reusing an existing symbol would make the grammar ambiguous.
Perhaps using other letters which do not conflict with notes:
aA for a, direction up aV for a, direction down
Lisp cdrcar-like, one can then combine them, for:
aAA for aA', etc....
Just an idea. Perhaps not a good one.
Also, have you tried using absolute mode, i.e. to use \transpose c c'{...} instead of \relative c'{...}. Depending on the type of music and your way of thinking, it may be more convenient. Note that you can change the "default" octave in the middle of a piece, by starting a new \transpose ... section.
/Mats
I tried absolute mode a couple of times, but never managed to get used to it. You're right: relative mode is the most intuitive way of using Lilypond.
Cheers,
Darius.
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user