On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of > > voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be > > preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by > > extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy. > > I understood this proposal
I'm not understanding any of these proposals. :) > as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode, > and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream. That's > what I was responding to. If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with > another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that. If anything happens before GLISS -- and I'm not claiming that it will -- then we *will* have a duplicate syntax for chords. We're not making a major change like removing \chordmode until after GLISS. I'm willing to consider adding new commands (like \chord), as long as it's understood that they might _also_ change after GLISS (so the command might only exist for 6-18 months in total). Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
