Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> My current approach is "what would look best for both tremolo and >> chords" since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or >> other. If there is a particular good combination that is downwards >> compatible, so much the better. > > Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't > think of one. > > What about c4;maj7? It's a very small change, and I suppose the > difference between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused > symbol AFAICS that could readily be adapted for chords.
c4;7 does not really look anything like a chord. Neither does c4:7, to be honest. So at best slightly worse. Certainly would look like a (hopefully) downward-compatible candidate for bringing the feature into circulation before GLISS. I think that c4/7 would look slightly better, and it has the added "advantage" that / already is part of chord notation. It has the disadvantage of clashing with existing c4*2/3 badly. Turning existing c4*2:8 into c4/8*2 looks like a saner approach: one can theoretically declare a tremolo part of a (scalable) timing specification (and it reads reasonably nicely), but a chord? In contrast, ; appears like it could dodge the issue until GLISS. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
