Flaming Hakama by Elaine <[email protected]> writes: > Mixing responses from several posters here... > > > > FWIW, my two cents on the design questions: > > Modifying the input syntax such that c:5 means <c g> seems ill-advised. > > That would be inconsistent with the rest of the input syntax, > where the first number represents the complete chord up to that > point.
It's exactly the same as happens already with c:13 (which removes the 11), and c:5 is arguably more important. > The problem would still remain, regardless of what input syntax you > use to specify <c g>, Lilypond will still not print C5, out of the > box. Which is a separate misfeature/bug. I don't see the point in the separate \powerChords command to turn on recognition of C5. > My point being, the c:5 interpretation is not the actual hurdle in the > task of printing C5 as a chord symbol. Red herring. > Such a change would only negatively affect anyone who used c:sus to > indicate a power chord. He now has the more aptly named c:5 available. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
