Hello,
On 23 September 2012 09:34, Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> However, the idea of creating another shortcut (p seems to be a good
>>> name) appeals to me. I would design p to repeat chords as well as
>>> pitches.
>>
>> When writing <c e> c q p, what does p repeat and why?
Is there a reason (I guess this mainly aimed at those that use 'q' (I
don't)) why another \repeat [variable] wouldn't be better in the long
term?
What I mean is that we have
\repeat unfold x
and
\repeat volta x
why not for example
\repeat chord x {music expression}
In fact if we had different variables for \repeat (I am sure others
could think of some more useful cases) then might that be better
'design' internally to manage - it seems more consistent anyway. I
understand the merits of just typing 'q' instead of a few more
characters, but 'q' if taken out of context is not that useful to
anyone other than the person who wrote the .ly piece in the first
place (I find reading other's lilypond sources that use 'q'
significantly akin to reading technical documentation where every 4th
word is an acronym or abbreviation).
I haven't though this through completely as of course I don't use q, I
just create a variable at the beginning of my accordion peices and use
\repeat unfold x { variable } - my accordion music is quite
simplistically rhythmic.
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
