Re: Attempted spec for low-C bass clarinet diagrams

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 02/08/2013 09:03 PM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
> I agree it needs an explanatory diagram at hand and it also calls for a
> possibility to have a numeric entry for specifying which key(s) to use for which
> note. But through the years I've learned that coming back with these kind of
> global things later will cause you headaches, because then there will be even
> more legacy around. Having a top-level entry into the graphs and procedures
> gives the possibility to fill it in later, redesigning is a problem.

I'm not sure what the issue is here though -- you already have a clear internal 
representation of the keys, the issue is translating that into numbers instead 
of key-names.

Is it really a problem to implement that translation later rather than sooner, 
given that the only difference between the numerical and key-name diagrams will 
be the presence of numbers rather than key-names?