Le 13 déc. 2009 à 11:05, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> If in an existing score I later replace a q with an explicit chord all
>> the following q, qq and qqq will need changing too.
>
> Yes. But q, qq, and qqq are not intended for use all across the score,
> but rather in confined places. I am not
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> Nicolas Sceaux wrote Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:39 PM
>>
>
>> Le 12 déc. 2009 à 14:01, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>>
>>> { G4 g D // | /// // / // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // // | /// // // |
>>> }
>>
>> Memorizing more than one chord/note (e.g. 3 chords/notes), and
>> ac
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 12 déc. 2009 à 14:01, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>
>> { G4 g D // | /// // / // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // // | /// // // | }
>
> Memorizing more than one chord/note (e.g. 3 chords/notes), and accessing
> them using q, qq, qqq, would do it?
Sure. The slashes are, well,
Nicolas Sceaux wrote Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:39 PM
Le 12 déc. 2009 à 14:01, David Kastrup a écrit :
{ G4 g D // | /// // / // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // // | /// // //
| }
Memorizing more than one chord/note (e.g. 3 chords/notes), and
accessing
them using q, qq, qqq, would do it?
Le 12 déc. 2009 à 14:01, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
> { G4 g D // | /// // / // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // // | /// // // | }
Memorizing more than one chord/note (e.g. 3 chords/notes), and accessing
them using q, qq, qqq, would do it?
___
lilypond-devel
Le 12 déc. 2009 à 16:00, Reinhold Kainhofer a écrit :
> Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2009 13:29:57 schrieb Nicolas Sceaux:
>> In particular, I've get rid off the user-settable
>> memorization function: only chords (with angle brackets) are memorized.
>> This should be the more useful to users, and at
Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2009 13:29:57 schrieb Nicolas Sceaux:
> In particular, I've get rid off the user-settable
> memorization function: only chords (with angle brackets) are memorized.
> This should be the more useful to users, and at the same time easy
> enough for LilyPond-aware editors to ha
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Hmm. I won't mind if `q' is able to repeat a single note too, for the
sake of consistency. Nicolas, would this be difficult to implement?
I don't think so - that's what Nicolas had in mind (and implemented)
first. I suppose I'm the one who made him thinking about the o
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So I'd think it would be nice to write something like
>>
>> { G4 g D // | // // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // / | // // / | }
>>
>> (number of slashes corresponds with how far you have to look
>> backwards, in this case counting slash sequences new when they
>
> So I'd think it would be nice to write something like
>
> { G4 g D // | // // | \time 3/4 G g / | D // / | // // / | }
>
> (number of slashes corresponds with how far you have to look
> backwards, in this case counting slash sequences new when they
> appear) or without reslash mem
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> I'm taking into account remarks from previous discussions regarding
> chord repetition. In particular, I've get rid off the user-settable
> memorization function: only chords (with angle brackets) are memorized.
> This should be the more useful to users, and at the same
> Two options:
>
> %% The second upper "c" octave is computed from the first "c"
> %% i.e. the last explicite note.
> \relative c' {
> 8 c' q c r4 q
> }
>
> %% The second upper "c" octave is computed from the previous
> %% repeated chord ("q")
> \relative c' {
> 8 c' q c' r4 q
> }
>
> I'd fa
Hi,
I'm taking into account remarks from previous discussions regarding
chord repetition. In particular, I've get rid off the user-settable
memorization function: only chords (with angle brackets) are memorized.
This should be the more useful to users, and at the same time easy
enough for LilyPon
13 matches
Mail list logo
