Le 6 avr. 09 à 09:35, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
As I do little note entry myself I don't have a view
on the merits of q vs &, but there is another issue to
consider. If the base chord being repeated contains
tweaks, fingering, etc, are these to be repeated too?
This should be customizable: a default function would be defined,
that the user could change it if needed. And the same goes for the
repetition character/string.
Somewhere you set:
#(define-public (default-repetition-function previous-chord new-chord)
... build a music expression...)
#(ly:parser-repetition-name parser "&")
#(ly:parser-repetition-function parser default-repetition-function)
By default, the repetition string could even be undefined, not to
break existing music code, and set only if needed, say be including
repetition-init.ly.
Then the choice of the repetition character or string needs not
be debated anymore, until the thing actually works :)
nicolas
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
