I actually remembered one thing that remains worth doing: integrating \chordmode into \notemode.
\chordmode and \notemode are quite orthogonal, and there are actually only few differences: c means a major chord in chordmode, a note in notemode c: means a major chord in chordmode, a tremolo with the same durations as the last tremolo in notemode c:4 ... Basically, the conflicts are that _not_ using a colon means a single note vs. a major chord, and tremolo notation. Sacrifice tremolo notation, and you are almost there. Alternatively, find a different way of writing chords, like using / instead of :. While we are at it with \chordmode, the question is why the octave on chords is being ignored: c:m and c,:m are the same chord. Why would it make sense to have a unified mode? Being able to combine single notes in the same voice and partly in parallel or succession with full chords makes sense for the piano, the guitar, the accordion, and probably several other instruments. Having to switch modes or spell out standard chords all the time is an inconvenience. With all of these instruments, "Um-pah" kind of accompaniments alternating between a single bass note and a chord is rather frequent. Being able to write those out sequentially would be seriously simplifying things. This kind of change does not provide significant logical or coding challenges: indeed the most important aspect is working out the conflicts with existing syntax and choosing alternatives and sacrifices where collisions occur. Parser conflicts while working on this will be rather straightforward to interpret and will have to be resolved by discussion and decision-making rather than by coding tricks. This would actually be a syntax project meaningfully tackled by a community process, including making the decision of whether one wants to tackle it. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
