Felipe, I'm still far from digesting the whole, but this is really great work!
> 2. int vs Rational > >> Why not use a sequence of Rationals (rather than ints) to represent >> the alteration? > >> If we use rational numbers, we can maintain backward compatibility. > >> The re-scaling of the alterations is interesting but >> unnecessary. They could still be rationals. > > That is a very reasonable idea. Its main advantage would be, as pointed, in > more robust backwards compatibility, as well as ease of implementation. > > If you decide for that, I can work on a new patch. > > Further considerations of mine might be found below question 1.1 in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-12/msg00729.html > and after the last quote in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-12/msg00737.html I'm wholeheartedly for Int's, both as mathematician and as musician. math: if rationals are used, I'd expect to be able to use not only 1/2 but 3/5 etc. mus: I don't care too much for quarter tones, but I do care for e.g. meantone tuning, where graphical output is the same, but MIDI manipulations are very different: the enharmonic interval gis-as is a bit more than half of g-gis. Using hard-coded 1/2 is plain ugly, OTOH I know that 1 is just the coefficient of the augmented prime (aka chromatic half-note). as a programmer: since we switch from numbers to pairs, users using exotic constructs ouside FLAT or SEMI-SHARP should anyway think carefully about converting to the new representation. p _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
