Hi,
In short, I propose to make the first argument to
\repeat optional, making \repeat n music equivalent to
\repeat unfold n music.
Thanks for working on that!
The issue I have with your idea is that to me, \repeat unfold and
\repeta volta/tremolo have slightly different semantics:
\repea
On 25/09/2021 08:46, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Absolutely. Of course it depends on which type of music you engrave, but
in my "common practice"-heavy everyday work, \repeat unfold 16 d8 comes
up _very_ often.
Just as a counter-point, while I'm a light user / copyist, I don't think
I've EVER u
What about using '**' to indicate repetition? Other programming
languages use '**' to indicate exponentiation, thus the analogy to
repetition wouldn't be too far-fetched.
c'*2*0.5 ** 5
{ c'2 d } ** 4
No idea whether this is easily doable in LilyPond's grammar.
Werner
Just as a counter-point, while I'm a light user / copyist, I don't
think I've EVER used repeat unfold, while repeat percent happens a lot.
I actually quite like the "\x16 d8" idea as a shortcut, but what I'm
saying is don't think it's a good idea, just because YOU do it a lot.
Other people
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
> But your special-character argument made me think: Maybe it would be
> possible to get rid of the * sign? Maybe I'm missing something, but
> isn't \{unsigned int} still "available" so one could do \16 d8 instead
> of \*16 d8 ? Of course, probably only David K. can say
But your special-character argument made me think: Maybe it would be
possible to get rid of the * sign? Maybe I'm missing something, but
isn't \{unsigned int} still "available" so one could do \16 d8 instead
of \*16 d8 ? Of course, probably only David K. can say for sure what
implications that wou
IS unfold the best candidate? Just because the OP makes extensive use
of it, doesn't mean everyone else does. I'd rather it was percent, but
I suspect I genuinely am a minority.
One of the reasons I argue against making \repeat $n \music equivalent
to some \repeat X $n \music.
An implemen
On 2021-09-25 12:46 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Aaron:
If the asterisk feels overloaded, you could use the multiplication
sign:
\version "2.22.0"
× = % U+00D7
I'd advise against introducing non-ASCII commands. Users won't be
happy if they can't find on their keyboards what the docume
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2021-09-25 12:46 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>> Aaron:
>>
>>> If the asterisk feels overloaded, you could use the multiplication
>>> sign:
>>>
>>> \version "2.22.0"
>>> × = % U+00D7
>> I'd advise against introducing non-ASCII commands. Users won't be
>> happy if th
On 2021-09-25 5:11 am, David Kastrup wrote:
Aaron Hill writes:
On 2021-09-25 12:46 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Aaron:
If the asterisk feels overloaded, you could use the multiplication
sign:
\version "2.22.0"
× = % U+00D7
I'd advise against introducing non-ASCII commands. Users won'
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2021-09-25 5:11 am, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Aaron Hill writes:
>>
>>> On 2021-09-25 12:46 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Aaron:
> If the asterisk feels overloaded, you could use the multiplication
> sign:
>
> \version "2.22.0"
> × = % U
Le 25/09/2021 à 14:44, David Kastrup a écrit :
Aaron Hill writes:
Still, be pedantic and miss the forest for the trees, my point was
that \x is a good option if \* was going to be problematic.
Sure, but the problem with \× is exactly that × is not part of ASCII and
thus does not uniformly
On 25/09/2021 10:19, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Just as a counter-point, while I'm a light user / copyist, I don't
think I've EVER used repeat unfold, while repeat percent happens a lot.
I actually quite like the "\x16 d8" idea as a shortcut, but what I'm
saying is don't think it's a good ide
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le 25/09/2021 à 14:44, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> Aaron Hill writes:
>>> Still, be pedantic and miss the forest for the trees, my point was
>>> that \x is a good option if \* was going to be problematic.
>> Sure, but the problem with \× is exactly that × is not part
Le 25/09/2021 à 09:46, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
Hi,
In short, I propose to make the first argument to
\repeat optional, making \repeat n music equivalent to
\repeat unfold n music.
Thanks for working on that!
The issue I have with your idea is that to me, \repeat unfold and
\repeta volt
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le 25/09/2021 à 09:46, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>>> In short, I propose to make the first argument to
>>> \repeat optional, making \repeat n music equivalent to
>>> \repeat unfold n music.
>>
>> Thanks for working on that!
>>
>> The issue I have with your i
"\*" =
#(define-music-function (n mus) (index? ly:music?)
#{ \repeat $repeat-shorthand $n { #mus } #})
Instead of debating a default repeat type and function, why not provide access
to repetition as a music function with a clear name like
\repeatFunction type n music
And let the us
Hi Jean,
I think it's a trap to see \repeat unfold as syntactic
sugar for repeating a sequence of characters n times
in the input. For instance,
\relative { \repeat unfold 4 c'1 }
is not the same as
\relative { c'1 c'1 c'1 c'1 }
Yes, of course. But I'd be very surprised if a large percentage
> On 25 Sep 2021, at 17:47, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
> And I think it would be nice to have an even more natural variant for that; I
> think it's reasonable to provide & show/recommend convenient solutions for
> standard tasks (rather than say "you can define your own abbreviation here if
On Sep 25, 2021, at 06:32, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
>
> "\*" =
> #(define-music-function (n mus) (index? ly:music?)
>#{ \repeat $repeat-shorthand $n { #mus } #})
>
Instead of debating a default repeat type and function, why not provide access
to repetition as a music function with a cl
>> And I think it would be nice to have an even more natural variant
>> for that; I think it's reasonable to provide & show/recommend
>> convenient solutions for standard tasks (rather than say "you can
>> define your own abbreviation here if you know how to do so") - for
>> example,
>>
>> \*2 "
> On 25 Sep 2021, at 18:37, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>> And I think it would be nice to have an even more natural variant
>>> for that; I think it's reasonable to provide & show/recommend
>>> convenient solutions for standard tasks (rather than say "you can
>>> define your own abbreviation here
>>> Perhaps the LilyPond syntax might be tweaked so that identifiers
>>> starting with a UTF-8 multi-byte (high bit set) character do not
>>> need the backslash. Then simply ×2 would look good.
>>
>> This reminds me of TeX's 'active characters'. I think we shouldn't
>> go this route. IMHO, a co
> On 25 Sep 2021, at 19:25, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
Perhaps the LilyPond syntax might be tweaked so that identifiers
starting with a UTF-8 multi-byte (high bit set) character do not
need the backslash. Then simply ×2 would look good.
>>>
>>> This reminds me of TeX's 'active cha
Dan Eble writes:
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 06:32, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>>
>>
>> "\*" =
>> #(define-music-function (n mus) (index? ly:music?)
>>#{ \repeat $repeat-shorthand $n { #mus } #})
>>
>
> Instead of debating a default repeat type and function, why not
> provide access to repetitio
On Sep 25, 2021, at 14:27, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Dan Eble writes:
>
> How about we change \repeat ... \alternative in its structure to be
> \repeat ... { \alternative ... }, namely introduce a separate music
> expression for \alternative? That way neither \repeat nor \alternative
> need to
Dan Eble writes:
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 14:27, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Dan Eble writes:
>>
>> How about we change \repeat ... \alternative in its structure to be
>> \repeat ... { \alternative ... }, namely introduce a separate music
>> expression for \alternative? That way neither \repeat
On Sep 25, 2021, at 18:55, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Allow partial \repeat commands without \alternative
>
> This allows using
>
>\repeat \etc
>
> and
>
>\repeat \etc
>
> to act like partial music functions in order to make it easy to define
> abbreviations. Howev
Dan Eble writes:
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 18:55, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH] Allow partial \repeat commands without \alternative
>>
>> This allows using
>>
>>\repeat \etc
>>
>> and
>>
>>\repeat \etc
>>
>> to act like partial music functions in order to make it easy
>>> The idea here is different, it is for identifiers, and in the
>>> input syntax only, does not change the internal semantics at all.
>>> It is good not having to type backslash when a command is used.
>>
>> Really? I highly doubt that. In particular, what about lyrics
>> mode?
>
> The idea w
30 matches
Mail list logo
