Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi, Nicolas, I recognized two potential sources of trouble with your new q command. (Excellent! Wonderful! Tremendous! idea, by the way.) I might have a solution for one of them, but I don't trust myself at all. Firstly, the one I have no clue about. Is it reasonable to hope for an addition

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Kieren MacMillan writes: > >> Hi, >> >>> Could it be an option to make 4*8 do the obvious thing? >>> Or even { 4 }*8 ? >>> That would be so much more natural.  The first already does something, >>> but not something which I would call usefu

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> OTOH, something like >> { 8-. -^ }*2 >> is not doable with the q approach. > > Of course it is: > \repeat unfold 2 { 8-. q-^ } Well, not exactly a shortcut for saving typing. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi David, OTOH, something like { 8-. -^ }*2 is not doable with the q approach. Of course it is: \repeat unfold 2 { 8-. q-^ } Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-de

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

>> OTOH, something like >> { 8-. -^ }*2 >> >> is not doable with the q approach. > > Why not? > > \repeat unfold 2 { 8-. q-^ } > > Please stop trying to overload the * operator. Well, David has a point here IMHO: The `\repeat unfold' really is neither elegant nor intuitive nor quickly to type

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Le 13 nov. 2009 à 13:25, David Kastrup a écrit : Kieren MacMillan writes: Since the patch (as I understand it) ensures that q does not duplicate anything except the notes, q allows for 8-. q-^ q-. q-^ etc., right? Obviously, this would *not* be possible with something like 4*8

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

At 13:25 on 13 Nov 2009, David Kastrup wrote: > Kieren MacMillan writes: > > > Hi, > > > >> Could it be an option to make 4*8 do the obvious thing? > >> Or even { 4 }*8 ? > >> That would be so much more natural. The first already does > >> something, but not something which I would call useful.

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

On 11/13/09 5:27 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > Marc Hohl writes: > >> David Kastrup schrieb: >>> [...] >>> But *4 is _logical_. You can guess what it does without looking it up >>> in the manual. >>> >> No. Since it looks like a multiplication, it treats the number, not >> the notes (at le

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Kieren MacMillan writes: >> Why couldn't you write >> 4 s4*3 >> or similar? > > I might be able to... but with your suggested "fix" of the * symbol, > > R1*8 > > would end up as > > R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 > > and potentially not compress. Depends on the details of implementing * I guess. >

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Graham Percival writes: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:33:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> In fact, I was quite surprised at what 4*4 does currently. Makes >> no sense to me. Can't imagine what it would be good for. > > \time 5/8 > R8*5 > > I used it all the time. For rests, yes. In particul

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Marc Hohl writes: > David Kastrup schrieb: >> [...] >> But *4 is _logical_. You can guess what it does without looking it up >> in the manual. >> > No. Since it looks like a multiplication, it treats the number, not > the notes (at least for me). So < c e g>4*4 could be interpreted as > < c e

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi, > >> Could it be an option to make 4*8 do the obvious thing? >> Or even { 4 }*8 ? >> That would be so much more natural. The first already does something, >> but not something which I would call useful. > > I use it all the time, actually. > >> The second bombs out

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi David, Why couldn't you write 4 s4*3 or similar? I might be able to... but with your suggested "fix" of the * symbol, R1*8 would end up as R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 and potentially not compress. This unwanted behaviour along with the loss of (e.g.) 4 q8-. q8-> ~ q2 would be unf

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:33:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > In fact, I was quite surprised at what 4*4 does currently. Makes > no sense to me. Can't imagine what it would be good for. \time 5/8 R8*5 I used it all the time. Cheers, - Graham ___

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi, > >> In fact, I was quite surprised at what 4*4 does currently. >> Makes >> no sense to me. Can't imagine what it would be good for. > > I use it all the time to write piano music which looks like it has > multiple voices, but without all the complexity of actually

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

At 06:23 on 13 Nov 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi, > > > Could it be an option to make 4*8 do the obvious thing? > > Or even { 4 }*8 ? > > That would be so much more natural. The first already does > > something, but not something which I would call useful. > > I use it all the time, actuall

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi, In fact, I was quite surprised at what 4*4 does currently. Makes no sense to me. Can't imagine what it would be good for. I use it all the time to write piano music which looks like it has multiple voices, but without all the complexity of actually writing multiple voice constructs

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi, Could it be an option to make 4*8 do the obvious thing? Or even { 4 }*8 ? That would be so much more natural. The first already does something, but not something which I would call useful. I use it all the time, actually. The second bombs out. In contrast, q feels rather hackish. Sinc

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

David Kastrup schrieb: [...] But *4 is _logical_. You can guess what it does without looking it up in the manual. No. Since it looks like a multiplication, it treats the number, not the notes (at least for me). So < c e g>4*4 could be interpreted as < c e g >16, which is not what we want. I

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Marc Hohl writes: > David Kastrup schrieb: >>> > This is great! >>> I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed: >>> - the shortcut is `q'; >>> - the function copying the previous chord only copies the chord pitches, >>> and removes all other decorations. >>> Both are customizable,

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

David Kastrup schrieb: Nicolas Sceaux writes: Hi, Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been discussed a few times, for review: This is great! I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed: - the shortcut i

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Nicolas Sceaux writes: > Hi, > > Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been > discussed a few times, for review: > > > > I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed: > - the shortcut is `q'; > - the function copying the

Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

> Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been > discussed a few times, [...] Wonderful! Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

Hi, Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been discussed a few times, for review: I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed: - the shortcut is `q'; - the function copying the previous chord only copies the chord pit