Re: clef change confuses manual key signature

[David Kastrup]

Keith OHara <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> That image does not make sense to me at all.  Notes appear in key 
>> signature (though in a different octave) and still carry an accidental. 
>> How do you distinguish a normal key signature (valid across all octaves) 
>> from a restricted-octave one (valid only in one octave)?  They look the 
>> same.
>
> Lilypond docs do not seem to explain any way to print the key signature
> accidentals on different lines than standard, except for this crazy method
> where the alterations count for just one octave.
>
> <speculation>
> There was no way to alter the printing of the key signature, 
> someone needed to do so, found the data structure for the local key 
> signature that tracks transient accidentals, including octave, used
> that as a way to serve his need, and posted to the snippets list.
> <end speculation>

And composers all over the land adopted "this notation".  Sounds like a
Microsoft success story.

> It would be better to use standard key signatures with custom scales
>   wholetone = #`((0 . ,NATURAL) (1 . ,NATURAL) (2 . ,NATURAL)
>       (3 . ,SHARP) (-3 . ,NATURAL) (-2 . ,FLAT) (-1 . ,FLAT) )
>   { \key d\wholetone  bes1 }
> and adapt the print routine
>   key-signature-interface::alteration-position
> to allow for more flexible printing.

No idea.  At any rate, I am going for the "valid in all octaves even if
octave is given" angle.  Of course that is incompatible with current
behavior, but current behavior is incompatible with common sense or
logic.  It is not even possible to guess the pitches one is supposed to
play.

-- 
David Kastrup