Re: [frogs] chord-name-engraver plus capo - schemeing away ...

[Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 8/30/10 1:38 PM, "Wols Lists" <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  On 30/08/10 02:17, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/29/10 1:43 PM, "Wols Lists" <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>>  On 28/08/10 19:17, Neil Puttock wrote:
>>>> 
>>> I'm quite happy to do it Scheme, and thanks for all the stuff you've
>>> sent/pointed me at to look at. Only thing is, at the moment it's as
>>> clear to me as double-italian (As a german-speaker (my second language),
>>> double-dutch isn't too bad ... :-)
>>> 
>>> All being well, I'll start on the capo-indicating-engraver in Scheme
>>> tomorrow, so expect a flurry of "how on earth do I do this!" emails :-)
>> Why do you want to do this as a scheme engraver?  It seems to sit very
>> nicely as part of the ChordName engraver, which is already written.  Note
>> that Neil's comment above indicates that he doesn't mean *as a scheme
>> engraver*.
> Ummm. How do I do that then? I agree it makes a lot of sense, but this
> is the bit that returns "Capo 3 (A)", so I can't do it in process_music,
> because it's not processing music, afaict.

Oh, my mistake.  Yes, you may eventually want to do that as an engraver.
But to do it as an engraver, you'll also need to add a capoEvent that the
capo-indication-engraver will respond to.

(Note that the name should be a noun, not a verb, so it's
capo-indication-engraver, not capo-indicating-engraver)

> 
> And it needs a valid key signature, so I'll need to test that, etc etc.
> This is where I really need a bit of guidance and hand-holding because
> I'm now in the position of "I know what I want to do, but I don't know
> where to start, and I don't know what to look at".
> 
> (That said, it's just struck me that maybe the key signature engraver
> would be a good place to look! I'll look there, but any guidance would
> be appreciated.)
>> Other than as an academic exercise to write an engraver in Scheme, this
>> doesn't seem to me to be the best way to get the functionality you want.
>> 
> I got that Neil wasn't saying "do it in Scheme", but as I thought I
> needed a new engraver, I thought Scheme was the best language to do it in..
> 

Yes, you're right.  I thought you were following up on the existing changes
to the chord_name_engraver.  So, by all means, go ahead.

Thanks,

Carl


---
----
Join the Frogs!