On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This may have nothing to do with your proposal/question but as a
>> reader I would find your example much harder to read/sightread than
>>
>> c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8[ c16] } c8
>> or
>> c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8[ c16 } c8]
>
> Yes. What I really would like to write is
>
> c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16[] } c8
>
> and I just demonstrated a case where my proposed notation would be
> helpful.
Can we stop the discussion on syntax extensions? \noBeam does the job
perfectly, and it is rare enough case that it does not warrant extra
shorthands.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
