[jmsl] EditStateProvider bug / feature request

[jmsl at music.columbia.edu]

> The Edit Panel was built before I added the enharmonic spelling  
> feature to JMSL, and I guess it is showing its age.  I also am  
> reminded by your email how little I use it, preferring to enter a  
> note, and then hit u or j to chromatically transpose the note  
> immediately (and letting my selected Accidental Spelling Preference  
> take care of the spelling).  But your hotkey model shows me how  
> valuable the ScoreEditPanel can be if its behavior is mapped to keys  
> instead of the more cumbersome mouse clicks
>
> I understand that selecting # or b in this panel is interpreted as  
> forcing an accidental upon the note, so that the behavior you  
> describe seems correct.


Hi Nick,

For what I'm doing, it would be very helpful to be able to enter the  
pitch with accidental because it makes it easier to keep track of in  
the database.  (rather than having multiple transpose actions, you  
just have the actual pitch entered once)

Also, another feature request on it:  could you add double-flat,  
double-sharp, quarter-tone flat, and quarter-tone sharp to the choices  
as well?

>
> Do you think anyone could reasonably interpret clicking on the  
> second space from the top with Acc flat selected really means that  
> pitch (C) should be spelled with a flat, resulting in  Dbb ?  That  
> does not seem consistent with current behavior.

I think that's not as useful.  If you click the space for C with  
Acc_Flat, you should get Cb not B nat.  If you wanted B nat, you would  
just release the key and click the middle line of the staff.

I'm using ScoreEditPanel as a sort of one shot transpose, rather than  
as setting it to flat or sharp for a series of notes, but this seemed  
like the easiest way to not have to rewrite the level-choosing  
functionality of EditManager.

Also, would it be possible to add public setters to ScoreEditPanel as  
well?  I have a version I wrote that extends it by adding those  
features, but I'd like to see them in the normal one as it might lead  
to other interesting uses and more flexibility...

> Let me think about this a bit and see if I can roll this into a new  
> build.  I may have some follow-up questions.

Thanks!

Peter McCulloch