2010/4/28 David Kastrup <[email protected]>:
> Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have
> expected "don't change current tremolo syntax". �...@8 has some
> mnemonic value ("play a quarter at eighths", oops sounds like a time).
> But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
preference:
1. "don't change current tremolo syntax" :)
You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords? I mean, does
it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
– already existing;
– widely used;
– actually I find the current syntax really mnemonic, ':' also means
"divided": cf. "a c quarter note, divided into eighths".
Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
\chordmode . Equivalent of
\chordmode { c1 g a g c }
won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.
2. OK, let's do some compromises and change tremolos syntax.
But I don't think we will find another syntax as mnemonic as the
current one, and without side-effects (ex: '/', see Reinhold's msg).
LilyPond syntax is already so "unstable", why should I change my
tremolo habits, because of the will to "get rid of \chordmode"?
Of course, I'm *certainly* biased and also a bit in "bad faith". :)
No offense,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
