At 13:25 on 13 Nov 2009, David Kastrup wrote:
> Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Could it be an option to make <c e g>4*8 do the obvious thing?
> >> Or even { <c e g>4 }*8 ?
> >> That would be so much more natural. The first already does
> >> something, but not something which I would call useful.
> >
> > I use it all the time, actually.
> >
> >> The second bombs out. In contrast, q feels rather hackish.
> >
> > Since the patch (as I understand it) ensures that q does not
> > duplicate anything except the notes, q allows for
> >
> > <c e g>8-. q-^ q-. q-^
> >
> > etc., right? Obviously, this would *not* be possible with something
> > like
> >
> > <c e g>4*8
>
> OTOH, something like
> { <c e g>8-. <c e g>-^ }*2
>
> is not doable with the q approach.
Why not?
\repeat unfold 2 { <c e g>8-. q-^ }
Please stop trying to overload the * operator.
--
Mark Knoop
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
