Le 6 déc. 2009 à 20:30, d...@gnu.org a écrit : > I think it is the wrong way to go if notes can only be guessed if you > know what user-settable memorization function is in effect. We should > not sacrifice readability for the sake of saving a few keystrokes.
This is a valid objection, but which kind of music elements should be copied by q, then? (which was my question in the first place) If people think that e.g. chords only should be memorized, then I'm fine with that. The implementation will be easier. On the other hand... which ratio of users might ever change the behavior of chord repetition memorization? I don't really think that readability might suffer, as long as the default is the most convenient. For instance, users can also completely change the note names, this is possible being given the interface for setting note names, but the fact that it is possible does not by itself cause readability problems. It could be even adviced to change the repetition shortcut when changing the memorization function, to avoid readability problems (or at least warn the reader that something unusual happens there). As a LilyPond user who maintains more than 100'000 lines of LilyPond code, what I cherish the most about LilyPond is its extensability. Is it really needed here, I don't know yet. Nicolas _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
