Werner LEMBERG <wl <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> IMHO, this is visually unattractive while reading a lilypond source
> and takes far too much time to enter. I really can't understand why
> there is so much resistance to a one-letter chord repeat item --
> ideally an unused letter like `q' or another ascii character (as the
> proposed `&').
I'd like to second this enhancement. There are other advantages besides
repeating big chords. For example:
c4 c2 c8. c16 ...
If I have a long series of the same note like this and decide that they should
be a different note I'd have to change each individual note. If this enhancement
were to be implemented I'd only have to change the first note and it would
ripple to the rest.
As far as the exact syntax is concerned would it be possible to just use no
character at all?
c4 2 8. 16
This is similar to how we can already leave off the duration and it propagates.
We would probably still want a repeat character for when '\repeat unfold' is too
long:
\repeat unfold 4 c4
could be written as:
c4 & & &
This would also make it easier to attach expressive marks in the middle of
unfolded repeat sections:
<<{s4( s\f s s)} {\repeat unfold 4 <c e g>4}>>
becomes:
<c e g>4( &\f & &)
This is much more readable (and maintainable I believe).
In any case I can see this enhancement helping immensely. I just checked the
issues tracker and I didn't see it listed there. Thanks.
-----Jay
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
