Hi Matthew (et al.), > This is why I think the chord names -> music -> chord names flow is a problem.
The fact that this flow exists is great, IMO. The fact that this is the *only* flow is clearly a problem. > Real users When talking about users, unnecessary and fallacious qualifications like “real” aren’t helpful to the conversation, in content or tone. I’m a "real user” — well, at least I *think* I am…? (pace, PKD!) — and I often [have to] "think in terms of a translation from input to notes and then from notes to output”. > The natural way for typesetting of chord names to occur is by a direct mapping > from input chord names to output chord names without going through > the current "music" data struture consisting of notes, at all. Well, that certainly is *one* natural way. As I’ve pointed out in other parts of this thread, there are evidently other ways (e.g., starting from a music data structure) which are equally valid. Losing any one of the three parts of information flow — input, throughput, and output — would by definition be a loss of power, and a shame. Working out a way to manipulate and/or sidestep the throughput stage (which is essentially what you’re suggesting) would be a *gain* of power, and a welcome improvement. Sincerely, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
