Re: Suggestion to make sharps and flats persistent

[Paul McKay]

Hi David

I agree that searching backwards would be horrific. I was not thinking it would be implemented that way. Suppose one could write something like the following:

itsInDmajor = { \override Voice.pitchTweaks = #( (f fs) (c cs) )

music = { \ itsInDmajor d4 f a c d }

and implement it where pitchTweaks is a list property of Voice or perhaps Score too. If missing or empty, it would do nothing. There would need to be 3 methods on this object: addOrReplace(pitchInput, pitchOutput); remove(pitchInput); and tweaked Pitch(pitchInput);

The tweakedPitch method would return the pitchInput unless that pitch was in the list.

As soon as the parser has recognized something as an input pitch it would substitute the tweaked  pitch. Putting fS in the music would be syntactic sugar for:

• create  Voice.pitchTweaks if necessary
• Voice.pitchTweaks.addOrReplace(f, fs)

I can't program Scheme or Python and don't know the internals of LilyPond so I'm sure to have got some syntax errors in the above, but I hope it explains better what I've been thinking.

Paul

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 15:32, David Wright <address@hidden> wrote:

On Wed 13 May 2020 at 14:59:10 (+0100), Paul McKay wrote:

> If I'm writing music in F, then I suggest that I be able to use *bF*  as a
> pitch instead of *bf*. The *F* would indicate that all subsequent *b*s
> would be flattened until one is encountered with a different accidental or
> until the end of the current music _expression_. It should have the same
> scope as \stemUp or similar.

The problem with that is that to find out what any particular "b"
represents, you have to search backwards, note-by-note, looking for
any such modification that might have been made to a "b" earlier.

Any copy-and-paste manipulations become potential nightmares.

Cheers,
David.