Re: Clef, key, and time-signature changes

[Dan Eble]

On Jun 3, 2023, at 04:09, Kevin Barry <barrykp@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 06:06, Carl Sorensen <carl.d.sorensen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I vote for adjusting the code so that it follows the documentation,
>>> probably by adding `forceTimeSignature` and `forceKeySignature`
>>> properties, both for orthogonality and a way to retain backward
>>> compatibility.
>>> 
>> 
>> I vote for initially just fixing the code --  use scm_equal_p instead of
>> scm_is_eq
>> 
>> At that point, we'd be consistent with the documentation.
>> 
>> If there is a use case for 'forceTimeSignature' then I suppose we could
>> create it, but it seems to me like YAGNI.
> 
> My preference would be to leave things as they are (and update the
> documentation), or, if not that, then follow Werner's suggestion. I
> have sometimes needed to reprint a time signature even if it wasn't
> different.

I am partial to changing the default behavior and providing a consistent way to 
override it.  There are some things that I would change about `forceClef`.
--
Dan