On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Joram Berger <joram.no...@gmx.de> writes: >> It's no real problem, just wanted to mention it. The idea came up while >> making a cheat sheet and realizing, that [ and ] have no equally short >> counterpart. > > So the main use case would seem to be a prettier cheat sheet. Wasting > symbols or tokens on that seems excessive.
lol :) I think that \noBeam isn't used often enough to justify a shorter syntax. Additionally, in my opinion it's better to have non-symbollic names for commands that make something disappear. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
