Re: Transposing pitches in the lilypond file itself?

[David Kastrup]

Paul Scott <waterhorse@ultrasw.com> writes:

> On 1/12/22 08:33, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Paul Scott <waterhorse@ultrasw.com> writes:
>>
>>>> On 1/12/22 07:02, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>> Alasdair McAndrew <amca01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Emacs' LilyPond-mode is an abomination in desperate need of maintenance
>>>>> or possibly rewriting from scratch.  There is no reason to use it unless
>>>>> you are one of those people who use Emacs for everything (in contrast,
>>>>> the mail/news client I am writing this in would be a reason to switch to
>>>>> Emacs rather than vice versa.  As are the LaTeX modes).  However, it
>>>>> probably has the only useable MIDI pitch recognition for polyphonic
>>>>> entry like those of accordions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I needed to batch-convert some input regarding relative/absolute or
>>>>> transpose, I'd likely start up Frescobaldi.  Never mind that it isn't
>>>>> the one editor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
>>>
>>> Can you give examples of what you don't like about Emacs?  I've been
>>> happy with it for 20 years. I only use it for editing.
>> There are lots of people who repeatedly tried using Emacs and ditched
>> it, even for some kind of vi clone.  I am sympathetic to them (and I can
>> work vi and its clones perfectly well) but I am not one of them.
>>
>> But the LilyPond-mode sucks.  Once it has decided on a wrong indentation
>> (and it does not indent embedded Scheme well, and it's one of those
>> things that may throw off its indentation altogether), it steadfastly
>> refuses to revert to the user-given indentation even if what throws it
>> off (wrongly) is pages above.
> I sometimes spend a few minutes fixing the indent problems but that is
> my only complaint which could probably be fixed.
>> Writing chords <x x x> is one of those things which often throws it off;
>> you need to write < x x x > instead.  That's just BS.
> I write <x x x> and it works.

bop = \drummode {
  << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
       { bd2\f r4 | }
     >>
   << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
        { bd2\f r4 | }
      >>
  }

   bopII = \drummode {
     << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
          { bd2\f r4 | }
        >>
      << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
           { bd2\f r4 | }
         >>
     }

      bopIII = \drummode {
        << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
             { bd2\f r4 | }
           >>
         << { <cymr sn>4 r \tuplet 3/2 { sn8 8 8 } | } \\
              { bd2\f r4 | }
            >>
        }

Seriously?

>> As I said: nothing wrong with Emacs (except for lots of general things
>> that make people go elsewhere, with differing amounts of being relevant
>> in the long run), but LilyPond-mode is an abomination.
>
> Even with the infrequent alignment problem I am quite happy with
> lilypond-mode.

Well, I use it.  Just wouldn't call my satisfaction level "quite happy".
Another frequent nuisance is that you cannot recompile without killing
the viewer.  AUCTeX (probably some inspiration for LilyPond-mode ages
ago) long ago has fixed that kind of nuisance.

-- 
David Kastrup