Am 31.08.2012 19:19, schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Manual writers: can we make up our minds here? I've always been
against frivolous syntax for shortcuts (one example in particular is
the "q" for repetition). Why do we put in "q" for users to save some
keystrokes, and at the time propose to require a mostly redundant '-'
in front of zillions of postevents?
Right, and getting rid of q would be quite hard. Why not have your
favourite editor (Emacs in lilypond-mode, JEdit or Frescobaldi) do
the right thing, ie, copy the previous note/chord when you type q?
The introduction of q says: we favour writing over reading. What
do we find important? Better readability, saving keystrokes,
stability...?
I don't think that 'q' means favoring writing over reading.
When I have a complex guitar chord with some string number information
and stuff, it would rather clutter up my editor window if every 'q' was
expanded.
By the way, the chord repetition *can* include the full information,
but normally some information is filtered out; see \tabChordRepetition
for example.
How should my favorite editor handle that?
So I think 'q' is both easier for writing *and* for reading.
Just my 2ct
Marc
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
