I am just getting off but read your actual posting and your different
interpretation.
For me it is logic to understand, that c:sus will suspend the 3. What
should happen with a chord without a 3? A powerchord. Usually one would
define a substitute for 3, that is not the case with c:sus. Why should
one wonder about the result - simply a power chord. What else?
The question why c:5 only just gets a "normal" c chord instead of a
power chord is not meaningless (at lest for me - as you see). And why to
use c^3 instead of c:5. Why c:5 does not work ... Lilypond developers
might rethink?
I worked in computer science whole my life and know that syntax is not
always logic in a "logical" sense in that so logical science as it is
called. I think many contradictions are just a question of habituation
(internalisation of TFM).
Well, (re-)reading docs is always good advice, but I'm pretty sure
from his other posts, he did already.
More thoroughly than others.
Though, yes, Kay could have provided some more code example(s).
But, did you (re-)read his posts, trying to understand?
Anyway, I understood him as follows:
He tried
% 1
\chordmode {
c:sus
c:5
}
and was surprised by the printed output.
Which actually can be achieved by entering
% 2
\chordmode {
c:sus4
c^3
}
And now he asks whether inputting % 1 can be made to return what % 2
does.
And now I'm thinking about it ...
-Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user