Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes:
>> So I'd think it would be nice to write something like
>>
>> { G4 g D // | //// // //// // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // / | ////// // / | }
>>
>> (number of slashes corresponds with how far you have to look
>> backwards, in this case counting slash sequences new when they
>> appear) or without reslash memory (probably saner)
>>
>> { G4 g D // | /// // / // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // // | /// // // | }
>>
>> (uppercase letters are single bass notes, lower case are chords).
>> The idea was to be able to refer back more than one note, _and_ use
>> the existence of backreference as an additional indication that the
>> printed score does not need to spell out the chord/bass either.
>
> Hmm. I won't mind if `q' is able to repeat a single note too, for the
> sake of consistency. Nicolas, would this be difficult to implement?
I think it would be very easy, but that's beside the point: IIRC the
current design has been chosen since single notes are not really in need
of a shortcut. So they don't clobber the shortcut memory. If there was
a simple way to backreference more than one event, this might not be as
important.
As I said: I am not sure that this shortcut/no shortcut is the best way
to decide about when to print note names in the not-yet-existing
accordion modes.
It just struck me that there is some overlap in intent. And since q
effectively does change the meaning of the input, I don't think it all
too far off to actually let it affect parser syntax to get a more
readable entry.
I am afraid that these are about half a dozen somewhat overlapping
concerns, so it is probably not overly reasonable to expect addressing
all of them in one solution.
But I decided to let others worry as well.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
