>> From a user's point of view who has to write a lot of piano music,
>> `q' is *really* valuable.
>
> In a score editor. Like Emacs' LilyPond-mode. Or Frescobaldi.
> Nobody says that you should not be able to make use of shortcuts,
> but that does not mean that the LilyPond language is the right place
> for providing them.
No, no, and again no! I want *readable* lilypond input. Compare
this:
<a c es f>8\f <a c es f> <a c es f> <a c es f>\p
<a c es f> <a b es f>\f <a c es f>\p <a c es f> |
with this:
<a c es f>8\f q q q\p
q <a b es f>\f <a c es f>\p q |
In the first version, have you immediately seen the note change from
`c' to `b' in the fifth chord? Only in the second version it's clear
that it is not a typo.
Chord repetition is a *central* part of piano music (and not only
there). It really deserves a proper syntax, and I'm glad that we have
it now.
> Editing shortcuts have a nice place in editors.
`q' is certainly more than an editing shortcut.
> q is one of those features that make LilyPond unfeasible as a
> storage format for music.
I believe exactly the opposite.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
