Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals

[Mark Knoop]

At 13:39 on 31 Aug 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from
> insisting on every note having its duration number?  Or insisting on 
> specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch?  How
> is \followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or 
> la-la-la from \relative pitch?  The difference is that 
> \followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement, 
> when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified 
> independently, it would be very simple.  The initial impulse for the 
> negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing 
> could and should be done, is simple laziness.

You seem to misunderstand how open source software development works.
It is not laziness for someone to not spend time on a feature that they
have no need for. 

> I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and
> make it available to any who are interested.  

Please post this magic script so we can see how your solution is
implemented. 

>                                               I just get tired
> of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this 
> irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option 
> in lilypond.  The decision does the coders no credit.  Regards, daveA

I have just read through most of this thread again, and the only
insults I find come from you.

-- 
Mark Knoop