On 18.12.2016, at 17:36, Tim Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/18/16 12:52 AM, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
On 18.12.2016, at 03:33, Tim Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it doesn't.
First, I should apologize for the heat of my reply. On a technical level,
I'm quite sure I'm correct -- but the way I expressed it may not have been
the most helpful.
I apologize in turn for getting hasty and defensive about code I haven't touched since 2009. It might not even be my issue! (Yeah, right...)
and, sorry about my comments about the classes being unreliable, probably they are fine! Or are there any things that you think would deserve some work?
I think the "normal" use case--dropping it into a Pattern with the \scale key--is pretty solid, because I use that myself a lot.
That is good to know.
But where there's one bug, there may very well be more. And while I tried to be careful about defining the built-in scales and tunings, I don't have academy-grade knowledge of that material at all, so there may be errors, omissions, and inadvertent generalizations.
Perhaps we should try and write tests that vary all the edge cases of the classes for examples that are easy to understand?
The rest might then be just proof-reading the scale and tuning data themselves. I vaguely remember you once mentioned the source for the scales, but I can’t find it anymore ...