Re: Suggestion to make sharps and flats persistent

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Wol,

> Those of us who only use \relative (just me?) don't have any problems with 
> cut-n-paste. Or is it just that my workflow is more likely to use "\repeat 
> unfold"?

Let’s say you’re writing a piece in sonata form (or even just engraving an 
existing one!).
You want to [re]use mm. 100-120, mm. 146-152, and mm. 190–203 from the 
exposition in the recapitulation.
Good luck pulling those out and plopping them down without doing extra work 
(octave checks, multiple compilations).

Now… you compile [in relative mode] and realize you missed a 16-measure chunk.
You try to add the new music, but forget what octave the relative mode is 
currently in.

ugh I’ve got a headache just thinking about it.  LOL

> I've got no problem with \keyed, but there is a fly in the ointment here ... 
> \keyed a \minor { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }
> Now is that a g-natural or g-sharp? Likewise the f.

Details, details…  ;)

    \keyed #'(a bf css d e f gs) { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }

Then a little sugar lets you do something like

  <pseudo>
     kierenskey = #'(a bf css d e f gs)
     \keyed \kierenskey { a b c d e f g a g f e d c b a }
  <\pseudo>

Look… I’m not recommending this — to me, it all sounds just as painful as 
\relative — but I have yet to be convinced that a rational implementation of it 
would be rocket-science-or-greater.

Cheers,
Kieren.