Dave Keenan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:38 pm
Should I build in the ability to recognize and substitute (parse and format) words such as Pythagorean, classic, septimal, etc. for numbers 3-, 5-, 7- etc. where appropriate?
Sure, if it's easy. But not as the default name on output, only as an option.
I'm looking through the "Comma Namer" sheet and realizing that I don't really understand the rules for when substituting words for the quotient part of the comma name is acceptable. I was hoping to find some rules there for automatically labelling them like this, but it looks like all these sorts of worded names are just hardcoded individually.
For example, the "vicesimotertial comma" seems pretty straightforward, because it has only a single factor beyond the 3-limit:
[ 5 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⟩
But what about the "classic chromatic semitone, minor chroma"? First of all, my code has no sense of "chroma" or "chromatic semitone"; that section of the size categorization is called "small semitone" and nothing else at this time. But what's more concerning is that it has two 5's in it; it's actually a 25SS! How would I programmatically know, just from looking at:
[ -3 -1 2 ⟩
That there's no simpler 5-limit, SS-sized comma, at least one with only one 5 in it? I mean, I assume that's the approach, seeking the simplest comma possible; it's related to the idea of how the 1/5C is the classic-comma, and not the 5C, because the 1/5C is simpler.
Another example, and this one really throws me for a loop:
[ -5 2 2 -1 ⟩
That's the "septimal kleisma", even though it also has 5's in it. How could that be? And now I'm seeing that the schisma used in Sagittal is called the "tridecimal schisma", even though it has a 5 and a 7 in it! Anyway, it's just a little weird to me because it seems like there's a strong pattern of commas named in this way having only the single factor beyond the 2's and 3's, but it's only like 75-80% of the time.
Or should I instead approach this problem with a goal of just hardcoding a handful of commonly known aliases, rather than trying to generalize this? Unless there's a really straightforward rule to follow, I feel that may be best.