Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > 2015-08-10 13:47 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> So it is pretty much established that the music-based approach comes >> with a healthy load of problems, and the input language based >> approach, while condensing most of the problems in one place, makes >> source code management a headache because each source code passage >> comes with its own associated input language. > > Well, I will not work on such a patch. I already had a hard time to > understand the thinking behind the proposal.
It's not all that hard to do. Just let \key run through the current notename language and replace all single-character note names with the setting from the new key (Germans would likely be furious about what this does to b but then they are hardly the target for such a change). Once you start arranging your input in variables (\global anyone?), work with multiple voices and transpositions, things will start to fall apart. Even things like \transpose c f become ambiguous since they could mean \transpose cn fs when uttered in \key gn \major. > Though, at a lower level one could start adding a snippet to the LSR > so that users can play around with it. Rale mentioned some, but > refused to post links... s/refused/omitted/. I cannot remember anybody asking for such links yet, so one can hardly accuse him of "refusing". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
