Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats
Status: Started
Owner: n.puttock
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Patch Syntax
New issue 1067 by v.villenave: Postfix syntax for repeats
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1067
Neil has posted an awesome patch that allows to have
{ music expression } * 4
instead of
\repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00467.html
We need to merge it and document the feature (and add a regtest). Then this
issue can be closed.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats
Can we please not do this?
Syntax changes look cute, and in rare case even require little code,
but they are impossible to revert, since we'd be breaking user files.
This needs to be accompanied by a much more thorough analysis whether
this feature is worth the additional perl-esque syntax, all the
ensuing confusion between {c }*4, <>*4 and c4*4, and the syntax
inconsistency (we don't have postfix music functions anywhere else).
Why dont we predefine a music function for this?
\R 4 {bla}
(perhaps \R #4 {..}) . With
{ .. }*4
users need to remember to insert a { before the repeated fragment
anyway, so postfix *4 really isnt any better than prefix \R 4.
On a more general note: can we stop the "let's improve the syntax"
discussions altogether? We've had them for over 10 years, they
generate a lot of heated bikeshedding discussions, and don't really
help anything, since they are fundamentally subjective.
If you are really interested in improving lilypond, improve some
collision algorithms so people require less manual tweaks.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:04 AM, wrote:
> Status: Started
> Owner: n.puttock
> Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Patch Syntax
>
> New issue 1067 by v.villenave: Postfix syntax for repeats
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1067
>
> Neil has posted an awesome patch that allows to have
>
> { music expression } * 4
>
> instead of
>
> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00467.html
>
> We need to merge it and document the feature (and add a regtest). Then this
> issue can be closed.
>
>
>
> ___
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats
Updates: Status: Invalid Comment #1 on issue 1067 by hanwenn: Postfix syntax for repeats http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1067 can we stop the syntax bikeshedding? Thank you. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On a more general note: can we stop the "let's improve the syntax" > discussions altogether? We've had them for over 10 years, they > generate a lot of heated bikeshedding discussions, and don't really > help anything, since they are fundamentally subjective. > > If you are really interested in improving lilypond, improve some > collision algorithms so people require less manual tweaks. On a related note: I am already expecting the discussions over comment syntax next. See also: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Wadlers_Law -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats
Updates: Owner: --- Labels: -Patch -Syntax Comment #2 on issue 1067 by percival.music.ca: Postfix syntax for repeats http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1067 Agreed. I've added it to the list of things to discuss in GLISS. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
