On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi,
Could it be an option to make c e g4*8 do the obvious thing?
Or even { c e g4 }*8 ?
That would be so much more natural. The first already does something,
but not
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi David,
OTOH, something like
{ c e g8-. c e g-^ }*2
is not doable with the q approach.
Of course it is:
\repeat unfold 2 { c e g8-. q-^ }
Well, not exactly a shortcut for saving typing.
--
David Kastrup
Nicolas Sceaux nicolas.sce...@free.fr writes:
Hi,
Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been
discussed a few times, for review:
http://codereview.appspot.com/154056
I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed:
- the shortcut is `q';
- the function
David Kastrup schrieb:
Nicolas Sceaux nicolas.sce...@free.fr writes:
Hi,
Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been
discussed a few times, for review:
http://codereview.appspot.com/154056
This is great!
I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de 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, but
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 g4*4 could be interpreted as
c e g 16, which is not what we want.
In
Hi,
Could it be an option to make c e g4*8 do the obvious thing?
Or even { c e g4 }*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
Hi,
In fact, I was quite surprised at what c e g4*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
At 06:23 on 13 Nov 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi,
Could it be an option to make c e g4*8 do the obvious thing?
Or even { c e g4 }*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,
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi,
In fact, I was quite surprised at what c e g4*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
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de 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 g4*4 could be interpreted as
c
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:33:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
In fact, I was quite surprised at what c e g4*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
Hi David,
Why couldn't you write
c e g4 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.)
c e g4 q8-. q8- ~ q2
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi,
Could it be an option to make c e g4*8 do the obvious thing?
Or even { c e g4 }*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,
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:33:55AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
In fact, I was quite surprised at what c e g4*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
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Why couldn't you write
c e g4 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
On 11/13/09 5:27 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de 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 13:25 on 13 Nov 2009, David Kastrup wrote:
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Hi,
Could it be an option to make c e g4*8 do the obvious thing?
Or even { c e g4 }*8 ?
That would be so much more natural. The first already does
something, but not something which
Le 13 nov. 2009 à 13:25, David Kastrup a écrit :
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
Since the patch (as I understand it) ensures that q does not
duplicate
anything except the notes, q allows for
c e g8-. q-^ q-. q-^
etc., right? Obviously, this would *not* be
OTOH, something like
{ c e g8-. c e g-^ }*2
is not doable with the q approach.
Why not?
\repeat unfold 2 { c e g8-. 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
Hi David,
OTOH, something like
{ c e g8-. c e g-^ }*2
is not doable with the q approach.
Of course it is:
\repeat unfold 2 { c e g8-. q-^ }
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Hi,
Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been
discussed a few times, for review:
http://codereview.appspot.com/154056
I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed:
- the shortcut is `q';
- the function copying the previous chord only copies the chord
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
