Reinhold Kainhofer <[email protected]> writes:
> Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb [email protected]:
>> { music expression } * 4
>> instead of
>> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
>
> I don't think this is a good idea with this syntax: How would you explain to
> a new user the difference between the following two:
>
> {c1}*4
> c1*4
1*4 is a duration, *4 is a repeat factor. If you want to have c1
repeated 4 times, write {c1}*4.
One _could_ thing about allowing c1*1*4 too, but that is a spectacularly
bad idea not just for readability:
You'll notice that when considering what
<< {c1}*4 >> does.
It creates a _sequence_, not a _stack_ of notes. So the operation of *4
is _sequential_ like the sequence in the braces. With << c1*1*4 >>
there is no sequential music inside.
Which makes it interesting to consider what to do about
MUSIC_IDENTIFIER * 4
My personal take would be to not split hairs and make a sequential
repetition regardless of whether MUSIC_IDENTIFIER happens to point to
sequential or parallel music.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
