On 16/03/2026 09:07, Luca Fascione wrote:
For me, in situations like that (where I’m tempted to write some
sort of
function to simplify LilyPond code), I usually end up choosing the
slightly more “wordy”, but standard, input syntax and think about
how to
make the inputting itself easier.
I am confused by what you're saying. In my head this is like TeX: if a
macro
can do it, it counts as being "standard" (this is how you get LaTeX,
obviously).
That’s not the sense of “standard” that I meant. I meant “standard” as
in “using only syntax and music functions shipped with LilyPond”.
The kind of workflow I was hinting at is: type shorthand in Frescobaldi,
e.g.
{
\C { c2. } |
c2 e8 c |
\L { ma -- zing __ _ } |
\L { grace that __ _ } |
}
and then search-and-replace \C into \chordmode etc.
I suspect that I can’t really advise any further, because I don’t
understand in general how the \parallelMusic approach would be more
desirable or pleasant than writing separate music expressions for the
different “layers”. IMO it’s worth adapting the logic that LilyPond is
designed for, and for example it’s going to make it easier to
copy-and-paste lyrics that are already available digitally (just
hyphenate and you have complete lyricmode input).
Then again, I probably get my “high locality of reference” needs met by
heavily relying on point-and-click.
Best, Simon
