On 7/11/16 12:06 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >I think the fundamental question is how to provide the information. > >We have a similar choice to make with tablature: enter the musical >information, or enter the playing instructions. > >With tablature, the choice ended up being notes, occasionally helped >with string numbers. Where this "occasionally helped" is not present, >you have the advantage of being able to _transpose_ and a new tablature >falls out. You can change the string tuning, and a new tablature falls >out. This would be the same with diatonic accordions: you could change >your instrument to one with a different tuning or transpose the melody, >and you'd get a new score. And/or you could change your choice of when >to push or pull (assuming notes are available) and you'd get a new score >appropriately changed. > >Now make no mistake: we had people complain that they cannot enter stuff >in tablature rather than notes. Obviously, there is a market for that. I know nothing about diatonic accordions, but given your comment on this it seems that the best approach would be to define an diatonic accordion engraver that could take a note together with an accordion description (the equivalent of a StringTuning) and automatically spit out the symbol. It could be consisted in a new context that is an alias for ChordNames, but with the chord-namer function changed to an accordion namer function. And if you need the push/pull information to help decide the button you could use \downbow and \upbow (at least in the beginning). I think such an approach would require no changes to the parser, and could actually be done in Scheme (using Scheme engravers) as an initial approach. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
