Re: Aw: Re: Several notation errors in bagpipe.ly

[Sven Axelsson]

On 8 June 2015 at 10:48, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 6/7/15 9:45 AM, "Federico Bruni" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks Oliver
>>>
>>>The correct email address is address@hidden
>>>The normal procedure is that the Bug Squad will open a new issue in the
>>>tracker if the errors are confirmed.
>>>I cannot comment on the changes proposed, sine I don't know anything
>>>about bagpipe music. I hope others will.
>>
>> I cannot comment on the changes either, but it seems like we have an
>> expert opinion that the changes are correct.
>
> The main question we need to address then is whether there is reasonable
> suspicion that people relied on the previous behavior, possibly by
> figuring out the names of commands to use by looking at the charts.
>
> Are any users of bagpipe.ly known/reachable with whom we could discuss
> how to proceed for making this change?  Are convert-ly rules advisable?
> Or is it more likely that existing music would actually get closer to
> the writer's actual musical intent?

I am the author of bagpipe.ly. Good to see someone looking over this
all these years. I choose the "irritating" names a long time ago and used
them without caring much if they represented correct terminology. I will
have a thorough look at the suggested changes as soon as I can,
but they do look reasonable.

I am not sure about what user base we may have for bagpipe.ly, but I
have had contact with some users at least. Extensive renaming of existing
movements can of course easily be implemented by a convert-ly rule,
but updating the user's memory of what to type to get the desired
result is perhaps not quite as simple.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.