Hi Kieren, Thanks for your reply; I hope my message didn't come off as rude or unsolicited.
(To be sure: I did not mean to suggest removing any functionality that's there. I can easily see many use cases for calculating the actual pitches of a chord internally. I meant more of an alternative chordNameFunction or engraver of some sorts that could be swapped in, one that would display arbitrary extra information for a chord as a suffix.) As a new user, the message was mostly intended to ask around a bit for the state of the art or latest thoughts on this. So far, I found most of the code relating to the (new) chord engravers in scheme and I can see how that part works, but I'm not too clear yet on the input side. I saw there was talk of a unified chord/note input; I'll keep reading the discussion/source/issues to get up to speed. (Meanwhile Jean's solution puts me in business for what I wanted to do; thanks again Jean!) All the best, Koen ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, November 28th, 2022 at 3:37 PM, Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi Koen, > > > I still think it could be nice to try to write a longer-term solution. > > > There has been a lot of work done on chord naming over the last decade, > mainly as part of a Google Summer of Code project a few years ago, but > essentially none of it has yet navigated through the patch submission process. > > There are lots of people who think it would be nice to write a long-term > solution — it just keeps getting stalled (for various reasons). <sigh> > > > Do you think there would be any interest in specifying the chord suffixes > > like that, directly from markup? > > > Not sure if I can speak for anyone else, but my interest is (and has always > been) in having a robust, unified system with a clean UI that handles most > (if not all) of the main use cases. > > > in the specific use case of printing a harmonic background, the layer of > > calculating chords from internal pitches is redundant anyway. There are > > many ways to think about a chord, and I change the way I think about them > > all the time: I just want to write it down and I don't need LilyPond to > > reason about it. :) (Although a root and a bass note are still useful.) > > > Make sure you’re up to speed on what’s been done in this area, since some of > the groundwork may be complete. And of course there are good reasons that > Lilypond has the calculating chords layer — the thing we all want (I think?) > is to add functionality without losing what’s already there! > > Cheers, > Kieren.
