> As far as the exact syntax is concerned would it be possible to just
> use no character at all?
>
> c4 2 8. 16
Aah, indeed this looks optimal! Han-Wen?
> We would probably still want a repeat character for when '\repeat
> unfold' is too long:
>
> c4 & & &
Following your first idea, `c4 4 4 4' would do the same.
> <c e g>4( &\f & &)
This would be `<c e g>4 4\f 4 4'.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
