On 12/29/14 12:42 PM, "Thomas Morley" <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm thinking about a major revision of our chord-naming-procedures for >quite a while. >Something at the lines of: >-Don't do any formating in basic functions/definitions >-Store all data in lists >-As _last_ step write a formatter > > >Carl, what do you think? I think that this makes sense. Commingling the logical information with the presentation is a recipe for making things hard. I think the logical data should be stored in alists, rather than lists. I thought about doing this a long time ago, but I couldn't figure out what the appropriate names for the chord elements should be. As a starter, we could have things like the following (taken from Brandt and Roemer): root mode (major or minor)? added-bass modifiers (maybe a list -- I.e. sharp9, flat5) polychord omissions inversion? (not strictly necessary for printing a chord symbol, but probably useful for defining a chord structure -- and I think that the alist should be used to define the chord structure). Some of these things already exist in the chord data structure; we probably ought to first augment the chord data structure to capture everything that we think is necessary. If we can get a good set of what defines a chord structure, then we can build the matching data structure. And once we have a solid data structure, we can make custom formatters relatively easily. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
