On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: > To me it would seem that the default mode of operation should be for > them to have matched rules where feasible, in order to have least > element of surprise.
I agree, but A. it may not be feasible in some important cases, and B. even matched rules wouldn't really solve the problem, because users would still have to explain to both the input and output systems their own preferred conversion between note sets and displayed chord symbols. (It doesn't help that the standard and traditional musical rules are *screwy* and the nonstandard rules many people want to use are even screwier.) Users want what they type to match what is displayed, even when it doesn't follow the default rules and possibly even when it doesn't follow any rules. For the common use case of chord mode being used solely to generate notes for ChordNames, and ChordNames getting its notes solely from chord mode, we don't really need the notes at all. Just turning the user's input directly into markup would make all the common problems with chords disappear. I've actually used lyrics to print chord names sometimes when I just couldn't get "proper" ChordNames contexts to do what I wanted. It seems like lyrics are 80% of the way to the markup idea I'm describing. -- Matthew Skala msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
