> By now, it is clear to everybody that you consider chord symbols to be > graphical objects and nothing more. Since Lilypond allows that - with > perhaps some tweaking here and there, and perhaps some minor syntactic > sugar to make the process more comfortable - I guess you must be happy. > > Then, what is the point of a statement such as the one above ? Myself, > as well as a number of others believe that Lilypond's system ain't all > that bad. Support for transposition is useful. We don't force you - or > anyone, for that matter - to like it or to use it. You can do without > it, that's ok with us. But please, don't feel as if you had the only > truth in hand about what is or what is not useful, appropriate, correct, > standard, good practice, etc. > > Darius.
I apologize if I've offended anyone. I have a tendency to repeat myself. Support for transposition is indeed useful, but I don't see how you need the block chords to accomplish that. All you need is the base notename; the symbols could carry from whatever notename you specified. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
