On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Tyler Eaves wrote:
> > Similarly, one could imagine a syntax, with increasing size of
> > structural element:
> >
> > \score { \simultaneous { <c e>2 <g c'>2 } }
> >
> > would be
> >
> > <<< << <c e>2 <g c'>2 >> >>>
> >
>
> I see this as a very BAD idea. To me code (and I consider lilypond input
> code) should be as self explanitory as possible. Besides, that kind of
> nesting makes it WAY to easy to type the wrong number of characters (IE
> >> instead of >>>)
Hm. I did not suggest it as a syntax (it was written in my comment line).
I would like to specify what I consider `BAD' here:
`<<<' cannot be used above, because `\score' combines not only music, but
also typographical things, midi, lyrics, paper settings etc.
I agree that `<<<...>>>' is BAD syntax.
If there is maybe some academic point here which might be the following:
(A) the `<' -type of is used to connect notes in a vertical manner.
(B) the number of '<' marks shows size of the vertical group:
0 : a single note has zero `<' mark
1 : a chord of notes has one '<' mark, this is `linear polyphony'
2 : a group of chords have two '<' marks, i.e. one '<<'
( 2 : a group of groups belongs to the previous one )
The older syntax was less self-explanatory:
0 : a single note
2 : a chord of notes
1 : a group of chords
Hence, I think the new syntax is the most self-explanatory:
0, '' : zero dimension, a note: c1
1, '<' : one dimension, a chord: <c e>1
2, '<<' : two dimensions, simultaneous: << <c e>1 { <g bes>2 <f a>2 } >>
QED (quod erat demonstrandum, or quantum electrodynamics).
Greetings,
Heikki Junes
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
