On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Marc Hohl wrote: > Am 20.09.2012 20:01, schrieb Graham Percival: >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Nicolas Sceaux wrote: >>> Le 20 sept. 2012 à 19:21, Graham Percival a écrit : >>> >>>>> A single note name is not that much longer to type than q. If it is >>>>> really important to you, place the single note in a chord: >>>>> <des> is perfectly repeatable by q. >>>> What would we lose if every note was automatically a (single-note) >>>> chord? >>> That behavior is intended, so that you can write: >>> >>> c <e g c'> g q c q g q >>> >>> And the idea, if you wanted to repeat the previous single note, is >>> to enclose it between < >. >>> q repeats the last chord, not the last note. That's why it's named >>> chord repetition symbol. >> I thought the behaviour was intended to simplify things like >> <c e g>4 q q q > Yes, but if you write some "hump-da hump-da" guitar or accordion > comping, then > > c, < c e d > g, q c, q g, q > > is quite fine; if c, is supposed to be < c; >, then this becomes > > c, < c e g > g, < c e g > c, < c e g > g, < c e g > > > so the advantage of q is completely lost in such cases. >> >> I'm particularly asking about making every note into a chord >> because that would make David's favorite <> construct a *lot* more >> consistent. At the moment, we have >> no note at a time unit: <> >> single note at a time unit: c'4 >> multiple notes at a time unit: <c e g>4 > from a mathematical/technical point of view, +1 > for a musicians point of view rather not.
I agree completely about this. Perhaps a solution would be a different shortcut to repeat the previous note, regardless whether chord or single note? _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user