From: D. M. M. <mic...@ro...> - 2007-04-18 00:49:52
|
On Friday 13 April 2007 5:57 am, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Friday 13 April 2007 3:45 am, Arnout Engelen wrote: > > I'm willing to give this a shot, but I'd like to discuss it here first, > > and of course I will put any patch up for review first before committing. > > My only comment is "you break it, you bought it." :) Incidentally, since you said nothing further, what I meant here was if you have a better idea, and you're absolutely sure it's going to work, then be my guest to play with it. Just understand that I put a lot of effort into the current implementation, and it WORKS. It has to solve a lot of surprisingly complex problems, and it gets acceptable answers 100% of the time. I think in this case "acceptable" truly means "it makes the same decisions Cakewalk does," which means if in doubt, use sharps in sharp keys, and flats in flat keys, etc. Admittedly, Cakewalk is not (or was not, last time I used it) a particularly good choice for notation anyway. I don't disagree that the results from transposing something could be better. I just want you to make sure you've considered all the edge cases before you turn the world upside down, and if you set about doing a new implementation, I'm going to hand the torch off to you, and it will be your baby to make sure it doesn't get anything wrong. If you're up for the challenge, then by all means go for it! -- D. Michael McIntyre |