Re: Lilypond's internal pitch representation and microtonal notation

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 06:16:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 9/21/10 3:46 AM, "Joseph Wakeling" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > .... but where/how in that system do we distinguish between for example
> > natural + 1/4 and sharp - 1/4 .... ?  Presumably the former is (m-q)
> > whereas the latter is (M-m)+(q-m) ... ?
> 
> It seems to me that the pitches natural+1/4 and sharp - 1/4 are the same
> pitch (i.e. enharmonic equivalents) and that it is appropriate to have
> either one represent the same pitch.

This is _precisely_ why we need clear feature requests, and why we
shouldn't start discussing the technical details until the request
is clear.  :(

Joseph pointed out a place in Kurt Stone's book which explicitly
recommend arrowed accidentals, and shows the difference between
natural+1/4 and sharp-1/4.  That is the starting point -- please
accept the assumption that these are *not* the same.

(or reserve judgement, and wait a few days until we have some
scans of the notation in question)

Cheers,
- Graham