Werner LEMBERG wrote:
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 don't think so - that's what Nicolas had in mind (and implemented) first. I suppose I'm the one who made him thinking about the other variant, since I took "chord" not as the Event structure, but actually as a chord consisting of different notes, which seems useful in piano music. In the meantime, I changed my mind a bit, considering the (valid) concerns from David and Wilbert: the repetition of all events (but, perhaps, skips and rests) seems to be easier to define consistently, and the lack thereof might not justify irritations about the semantics of the input. (E.g. in the case of this relative mode problem.)
Well, since the code basically seems to be there in both variants, and both of them are useful: (and I expect David to come after me, but that's what I want since he proves a far better understanding of meaningful semantical conventions...) Is it reasonable to use _both_ approaches, with shortcuts, say, q (everything repeated, including pitched rests, e.g.) and Q (only "chords" with several notes repeated), but not to offer the exchange of the memorization functions for those?
Cheers, Alexander _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
