RE: Issue 1278: Arrow notation for quarter-tones. (issue3789044)

[Carl Sorensen]

________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden On Behalf Of Benkő Pál address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:11 PM
To: Felipe Gonçalves Assis
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Issue 1278: Arrow notation for quarter-tones. (issue3789044)

Felipe,

I'm still far from digesting the whole, but this is really great work!

> 2. int vs Rational
>
>> Why not use a sequence of Rationals (rather than ints) to represent
>> the alteration?
>
>> If we use rational numbers, we can maintain backward compatibility.
>
>> The re-scaling of the alterations is interesting but
>> unnecessary.  They could still be rationals.
>
> That is a very reasonable idea. Its main advantage would be, as pointed, in
> more robust backwards compatibility, as well as ease of implementation.
>
> If you decide for that, I can work on a new patch.
>
> Further considerations of mine might be found below question 1.1 in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-12/msg00729.html
> and after the last quote in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-12/msg00737.html

I'm wholeheartedly for Int's, both as mathematician and as musician.

math: if rationals are used, I'd expect to be able to use not only 1/2
but 3/5 etc.

mus: I don't care too much for quarter tones,
but I do care for e.g. meantone tuning, where graphical output is the
same, but MIDI manipulations are very different: the enharmonic interval
gis-as is a bit more than half of g-gis.  Using hard-coded 1/2 is plain ugly,
OTOH I know that 1 is just the coefficient of the augmented prime (aka
chromatic half-note).

as a programmer: since we switch from numbers to pairs, users using
exotic constructs ouside FLAT or SEMI-SHARP should anyway think
carefully about converting to the new representation.

p

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel