Kieren MacMillan <[email protected]> writes: >> Why couldn't you write >> <c e g>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. > This unwanted behaviour along with the loss of (e.g.) > > <c e g>4 q8-. q8-> ~ q2 > > would be unfortunate. Well, never mind the q, it is orthogonal to the * behavior. Implementing * as expected does not necessitate throwing out q. But I have to say that an unadorned / would seem more logical than q. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
