On Thursday 17 June 2004 09:49 pm, Wayne wrote:
> Ideally you would specify the chord as a musical entity and then any key
> change would also be reflected as a chord change.
> As a work around, if the chord was fully notated on an extra track,
> would the chord name ruler then be able to correctly recognise the chord?
I have no idea, really. I didn't write it, and I've never looked at the code.
I've just observed that it's very easy to fool. You're probably on the right
track with that idea. Removing any ambiguity should massage it into always
making the right decision.
> If so then you could use that track to specify the chord and all that
> would be necessary is to make the chord ruler print correctly above the
> musical score (of course you would not want to print the track that has
> the "full" chord.)
I don't know that anyone ever thought of *printing* the chord ruler, or that
using the chord ruler is even the best way to handle the problem of having a
transposeable musical entity up there above the staff.
This is one where I'd better just shut up and let Chris have a say. For my
part, I think the idea has merit. At least conceptually. Being able to
transpose written chord indications would be convenient.
> In any case being able to write in the chord as a text event would be a
> big help now.
> Thanks for all your work.
You're welcome. Don't give me more credit than I deserve though. It only
happened so fast because it was quite trivial to add. An uberhacker I ain't.
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <dmmcintyr@...>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621