Robin Davies wrote: > still wouldn't use it myself. ;-) Perhaps I'm missing the intended > application for the inversion notation scheme. The fact that the more useful > of the two (the base note notation) is the oddball case rather than the > default case disturbs me a little, as well.
You are very focused on notation - but one of the base ideas of lilypond is that the input should contain not just enough information for the music to be typeset but also for the music to be correctly performed. I think that the idea of having inverted chords (I don't know wheter I think it is a good idea, well) is that the chord scheme should also contain enough information to make it possible to make the midi-output control the auto-accomp. of a midi keyboard. Personally I agree with you - everything would be much easier if a chord was split into base note and chord notes. Btw, regarding keeping things simple: An a bit hacky way of simplifying sus4-notation a lot would be to internally represent the sus4 as an augmented 3rd. So internally Csus4 would be represented with: c-eis-g. I know this is musical-theoretically bad, but logically I find it very consistent - especilly with my prefered square-notation: A diminished 3rd adds a "m" to the chord name right after the main note, and an augmented third adds a square at the same place. -Rune _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
