Hello,
On 23 September 2012 12:34, Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> wrote:
> Am 23.09.2012 13:01, schrieb James:
>>
>> 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}
>
> This construct doesn't allow for mixing single notes with
> chords.
I see. Hmm...yes that's awkward.
>
> There are instruments and music styles which greatly
> benefit from having 'q' available, whereas others don't,
>
> I write a lot of music for guitar (and recently, I had to
> typeset music for accordion, too) and there is a
> great advantage in both typing *and* readability
> between
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
>
> and
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 q
>
> (assuming you have switched on \tabChordRepetition).
I'm still not sure I am convinced. Amount of typing? Sure you have to
type less - perhaps (depending on how many 'q' chars you need) but
readability is subjective it seems (i.e. I don't use q, you do I don't
find q that readable at all simply because I read from the left to
right and then see a q and have to jump back left to recall what it is
repeating (just in case I missed something) whereas explicitly writing
out \repeat chord {music expression} is easy - forget about the mixing
notes with chords for now, I _do_ take that point however.
>>
>>
>> [...](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'd just say the opposite; in my example above, any change in the
> chord is not as easily spotted when you write out everyting:
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
>
> as opposed to
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 q
>
> In the lower example, you see at first glance that the last chord
> in the first measure changes.
That's just how a person writes out his file; I found the example you
gave poor in that I can see the line length doesn't match so I could
see instantly the change.
So to try to take the same examples:
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 q
e,\5 q
b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 q
e,\5 q
b,,\6 q
vs
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
By the time I get to the last line in the first example, I've
forgotten what q is repeating :) so I have to jump back - what was q
again? etc. The second example here is straightforward, sure it
doesn't tell me what has changed compared to X instance, but neither
does q (at least in long passages).
Actually this is probably why I've never bothered to use q for
accordion bass lines on my own compositions, but create variables like
\cmindimsev \cminor \gminorfive etc. in the lilypond file then use
\repeat unfold, so when I have lots of repetitive chords and then
sudden and small passage changes I don't have to care what the
'previous' chord was to make sure I have it right, I already know what
it is now, because what my eye is reading is what the chord really is
- if that makes sense to you?
From a novice's point of view q on the face of it is handy, but handy
in the sense that some of the LSR hacks are handy, it just seems so
unlike/inconsistent with any of the other commands we use in LP. I
don't personally have any feelings about whether q is good/bad, I can
see it certainly makes typing quicker, what I was wondering was is the
q 'function' holding back and/or preventing other parts of the .ly
language from being improved/more streamlined in the lexer & parser
work that David is working on. And was coming at it from an angle of
'if we *had* to get rid of q what would be a more consistent way of
redoing that function' at least at a level that I (a non-programmer)
can understand, that was more consistent with what we do at the moment
and the \repeat function seemed a good candidate.
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
