Rangarajan

Hi, When you click "Clear" in the Listener window, the entire text is cleared as expected, but the prompt does not appear - even if you press "Enter" many times. It comes back only after you evaluate an expression. I think that "Clear" should bring back the prompt after clearing the text. Regards, Rangarajan

OK! But still, somebody else might report this as a bug! -Rangarajan

When I execute a function/expression in the Listener, there is a dump of trace messages of other functions called from that function. Is it possible to disable this tracing? I find it distracting. Regards, Rangarajan

I noticed that the documentation for "pitch-to-midi" function says the argument must be a list. To confirm this, the examples use a list argument. However, the function accepts even a single pitch and returns the expected midi value. I think the implementation is useful as it is, only the doc must change. The same observation is true for "midi-to-pitch" function as well. Regards, Rangarajan

OK, thanks. -Rangarajan

Hi, Let us say that I have 3 files (File1, File2, File3) in my workspace. With File3 in the composer view, when I "Remove" it from the workspace, the file is removed from the workspace files list, but is still visible in the composer. Is this intended behavior? I personally think the file should not be visible and the next "appropriate" (either previous or next) file in the workspace must be made active. If at this point I close the workspace and reopen it, I am surprised to find File3 automatically being opened in the composer, when it is no longer in the workspace. This is even more surprising/confusing. Just my view. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, Looks like there is some issue with make-omn function. Evaluating the following causes no problems: (make-omn :pitch '((bb4)) :length '(e) :span :pitch) However, the following causes the system to become unresponsive in a couple of seconds: (make-omn :pitch '((bb4)) :length '(-e) :span :pitch) The difference between the first and second is that the pitch has "rest" length. Please check. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi SB, I agree with you. One possibility is to allow both forms: '(c major) as well as '(c3 major). If the octave is given (2nd case), then use that for the root, otherwise use the existing behaviour. -Rangarajan

Hi, When I use a function such as "harmonic-progression" where I have to specify a scale, it seems natural to associate the root with the scale description. For example, '(c4 major) or '(a3 lydian) seems correct to me. But what is allowed is this: '(c major) and '(a minor). Why is the former representation (with the actual root octave) not allowed? I see that the function "harmonic-progression" allows you to mention the root as an argument, but is it not more natural to bind it to the scale itself? Regards, Rangarajan

It is one of the best IDEs ever for Java development. Extremely productive! Regards, Rangarajan

Yes, I tried just now. But it shows many irrelevant words, so it is confusing for use within OM. A lisp-aware implementation will help a lot. If you get time, take a look at Intellij Idea from Jetbrains. Regards, Rangarajan

Thanks! Yes, it is straightforward. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, When I write code in the main Composer window, I have the menu option to "Evaluate and Play" and "Evaluate and Notation". Is there a way to do both, that is, play as well as render the notation for the score I write? Because of the random nature of the notes generated in my code, I cannot do one (Play) and then the other (Notation), because the values would change every time. It would help if I can do both at the same time so that I can check if what I am doing is correct. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, One feature that I believe will add great value to Opusmodus (esp. Live Coding) is the ability to emit MIDI data as it is generated by the program. Currently, the whole MIDI sequence is constructed from def-score and then emitted. If we have functions for sending MIDI data directly, that will help in interacting with other devices (e.g DAW) in live, dynamic mode. I am guessing that this functionality is already there, but not exposed. Sometime ago, I had asked about OSC support, and the reply was that it will be available in ver 1.2. Both these features will enhance the value of the program. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, It would be nice if the IDE can support function name completion. For example, if I type "harmonic-" followed by TAB key (or some other modality), the IDE should complete the function name "harmonic-progression". "Intellisense" is common among many IDEs these days. The most inspiring IDE I have ever worked with with IntelliJ for Java. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, Here is a suggestion. When I add a new file to an existing workspace, the IDE creates that file and adds it to the workspace correctly, but in addition, it would be better (I feel) to make the new file the active file. At present, the file switching is not taking place. I guess you would have a valid reason for that behaviour, but I personally would prefer to automatically switch to the new (empty) file. Regards, Rangarajan

Looking forward to it! -Rangarajan

That is a very nice generalisation of chord-progression mechanism. Thanks. When will this become available? -Rangarajan

Hi SB, Very nice, thank you! I will check this out. Regards, Rangarajan

You are welcome. -Rangarajan

Hi, I am looking for some functions that support chord progressions. For example, I would like to get the chords in the popular "I-IV-V" sequence in C Major scale. Is there built-in support for such standard progressions in the keys of common scales? Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, In the documentation of "Chord-Library", the following two examples are incorrect: (expand-chord-name 'maj7s11 :pitch) => (c4 e4 g4 b4 gb5) (expand-chord-name 'maj :interval) => (4 3) The :type keyword is missing. I guess the correct evaluation is: (expand-chord-name 'maj7s11 :type :pitch) => (c4 e4 g4 b4 gb5) (expand-chord-name 'maj :type :interval) => (4 3) Regards, Rangarajan

Thanks very much. Regards, Rangarajan

Thanks. Is it correct to say that this option only affects the notation display and not the actual notes played? I did "Evaluate and Notation" after changing this option a few times and each time I noticed that the notation had the expected key signature rendering, but it did not seem to alter the notes. Request you to confirm this observation. Regards, Rangarajan

Hi, When should we use the :key-signature option in def-score? Normally, when we define :pitch and :length (or the OMN spec) in def-score instruments, the tonality is fully specified. So what is the need for :key-signature such as (c maj)? In case this option is given, will automatic tonality mapping occur from the given pitches to this scale? Regards, Rangarajan