Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Moving pitch shouldn't ignore measure context #114

Open
Brathenning opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Moving pitch shouldn't ignore measure context #114

Brathenning opened this issue Sep 23, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
feature request Wanted new functionality

Comments

@Brathenning
Copy link

When changing pitch chromatically previous accidentals in the measure are ignored and flats and sharps are placed only in regards to the key signature. Also when changing pitch either chromatically or diatonically @accid.ges is only changed on accordance with the key signature and not with accidentals previous in the measure.

It would be great if that could be included because it avoids situation where a pitch change leads to a clear mistake where @accid.ges says something different than the visual output (a mistake findable with the check accid.ges function).
@wergo wergo added the feature request Wanted new functionality label Sep 26, 2024
@wergo
Copy link
Member

wergo commented Sep 26, 2024

This concerns a fundamental design question. Should an action at one place (changing the pitch of a note chromatically) alter the content elsewhere, based on tonal assumptions valid for a certain period in music history.

As you mentioned, the check @accid.ges functionality hunts all these cases and provides IO functionality to quickly jump to them and fix them. I guess letting this function run and auto-fix everything after each pitch change would solve your suggestion. I am not entirely sure whether that would be a good behavior for mei-friend. (It might also get a little slow.)

Wouldn't the current workflow (changing pitch, editing whatever) and manually initiating check @accid.ges be the more straight-forward solution with less assumptions?

(Somehow related to #39.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
feature request Wanted new functionality
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@wergo @Brathenning