Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>>>> I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and >>>>>> post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day >>>>>> sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback. It would make >>>>>> (c (d) e) >>>>>> visually confusing. While neither the current >>>>>> c( d)( e) >>>>>> nor the standalone event version >>>>>> (c )(d )e >>>>>> will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in conveying >>>>>> meaning rather than looking pleasing. >>>> >>>> What about considering ( as a post-event and ) as a standalone event ? >>>> c( )d( )e is symmetric and very clear. > > c()d()e is a pain in the ass, and we got rid of it in the 1.8-2.0 > syntax change. It is a pain in the ass, because when copying music, > you have to remember to put some adornments (ie. the ')' ) before the > note, while most go after the note.
Example? While I am apparently preparing the ground for historic reenactments, we'll want to convey some of the original horror, and I don't get it yet. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
