On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Xavier Scheuer <x.sche...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2010/4/28 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
>>
>>> Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have
>>> expected "don't change current tremolo syntax". �...@8 has some
>>> mnemonic value ("play a quarter at eighths", oops sounds like a time).
>>> But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
>>
>> My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
>> preference:
>>
>> 1. "don't change current tremolo syntax" :)
>>
>> You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
>> syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
>> Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords? I mean, does
>> it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
>> If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
>> keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
>
> I think = is too close (probably even conflicting) to assignments to
> make really sense. Or I'd have suggested it for tremolos already: looks
> a lot more like tremolo bars than : does.
>
>> Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
>> \chordmode . Equivalent of
>> \chordmode { c1 g a g c }
>> won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.
>
> Quite true.
>
> My current approach is "what would look best for both tremolo and
> chords" since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other.
> If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible,
> so much the better.
Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't
think of one.
What about c4;maj7? It's a very small change, and I suppose the difference
between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused symbol AFAICS that
could readily be adapted for chords.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
