Re: Plans for changing chord repeat implementations

[James]

David,

On 29 January 2012 02:26, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Le 26 janv. 2012 à 11:00, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>
>>> The bad news is that absolute pitch friends would have to call the \q
>>> function (any better name for it?) explicitly.  Since q is an input
>>> convenience, and relative pitch is also an input convenience, I don't
>>> think that there would be much of an affected user base.
>>
>> I do use absolute pitch mode, together with the q shortcut, so the
>> affected user base is non-nil.
>
> <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/5595043>
>
>> What would be the impact of your solution on this kind of code?
>> Is it just about adding e.g. \q before the block?
>
> The user impact is now down to nil.  There is no longer any relation of
> the implementation to \relative.  Since you don't need to call it
> manually except for special considerations (like letting it retain
> articulations in some passage), \q is now called \chordRepeats.
>
> I don't think that there are nightmarish corners in the implementation
> and behavior any more.
>

So we need to make any tweaks to the NR since

"...There is no longer any relation of
the implementation to \relative..."

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/single-voice#chord-repetition

an @warning or @knownissue?

Regards

-- 
--

James