Valentin Villenave wrote: > 2008/6/13 Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Since the same request has appeared for ordinary notes, some clever Scheme >> hackers have >> made a function that automatically gets rid of the extra accidentals by >> enharmonically rewriting the >> music. >> > > Dumb question: are we sure we still do need the ordinary \transpose? > > If not, may be we could make it "smarter" by implementing the snippet > as a default code... (possibly keeping the current function as an > \old-transpose command for backwards compatibility?) > > Or is it likely to break many many many things? > Of course we want transposition to be theoretically correct as the default.
When I run into a transposition such as the OP has given I look for other transpositions which might give me what I want or I break the piece into parts and transpose the parts differently. This is not to discourage the solution presented by Mats as an option. Paul Scott > Cheers, > Valentin > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
