Re: absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave (issue 235010043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

address@hidden writes:

> On 2015/05/03 20:25:22, dak wrote:
> > On 2015/05/03 16:42:02, Trevor Daniels wrote:

> > I find it awkward when \absolute c'' and \absolute g'' mean exactly
> the same
> > thing.  But it's not like I could not live with it.  But I still
would
> recommend
> > just using c to keep one's options for possible later changes.  And
> not have too
> > much choice without associated meaningful difference.

> The new patch (awkwardly) has \absolute c'' and \absolute g'' mean
> exactly the same thing.
> My reason for that was to present less of a surprise if someone used
> \absolute g'' {g ...} wanting to start on G5, i.e., g''.

Well, yes this seems like something people would tend to do in analogy
to some \relative convention.  And yes, the expectation would likely be
the same as with \absolute c''.  And it's not like \transpose is not
around when one wants it.

> A few times people brought up \transpose c c' {...} as a useful method
> of music entry, but people went on to suggest other entry methods that
> didn't seem to me to be any easier

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2003-10/msg00332.html

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-03/msg00494.html

> In a thread complaining about \relative, I suggested the \absolute 3
{}
> variant, also without much interest.

Well, it's always hard to raise enthusiasm for something that does not
actually offer anything new (\transpose exists).  The people on the
mailing lists are not beginners.  This kind of addition would likely get
the most useful feedback from people *teaching* LilyPond.  We don't have
a lot of those unless you count "batch teachers", namely documentation
writers.

https://codereview.appspot.com/235010043/