On Friday 24 October 2003 03:11 am, Rune Zedeler wrote: > David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > > The proposed new relative mode has more typing than the present > > relative mode, yet it is no more readable, so it seems to me to > > have the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither. > > If you are referring to my proposal then it is not true for intervals > less than an octave. > What I mean is: As long as your piece have no jumps greater than an > octave then the new relative-mode is completely > down-wards-compatible: Anything written in the old mode would mean > exactly the same thing in the new mode - and hence you wouldn't have > to add extra key strokes.
I guess I didn't understand your proposal then, or you changed it and I missed it. Sorry. I'm happy to withdraw my characterization of it having the disadvantages of both, etc.. To quote: "So »c d e d c« and »c d' e' d, c,« would mean the same thing." But that doesn't matter. A \relativetwo statement or something could select it and it could still be entered with the colon, because anchor notes would make \relativetwo more usable as well. As things are, I find relative mode unusable. Anchor notes might change that for some scores. An editing tool to transform relative(s) to absolute would be a good thing, IMHO. I wouldn't know how to write one. That is the only way to truly have *all* of the advantages of both relatives and absolute and the disadvantages of none. daveA -- D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ http://www.openguitar.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
