Re: Shortcut for \repeat unfold

[David Kastrup]

Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes:

> Le 25/09/2021 à 09:46, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>>> In short, I propose to make the first argument to
>>> \repeat optional, making \repeat n music equivalent to
>>> \repeat unfold n music.
>>
>> Thanks for working on that!
>>
>> The issue I have with your idea is that to me, \repeat unfold and
>> \repeta volta/tremolo have slightly different semantics:
>>
>> \repeat volta and \repeat tremolo create "time-honored" visual
>> indicators for repeated music, so they are commands that correspond
>> to special music layouts.
>> \repeat unfold saves typing while inputting music.
>>
>> Of course, the distinction is not very strict, in particular since
>> there's \unfoldRepeats. But still I'm not sure it's ideal
>> syntax-wise if users have to use the same command for "saving
>> typing" and for "creating musical repeat signs / tremolo
>> notation". And this, I think, is exacerbated with your suggestion,
>> because if \repeat alone is the keystroke-saving command, then
>> \repeat volta and \repeat tremolo look like variants of that: Adding
>> a qualifier turns the command into something completely different.
>
> The musical validity of this approach might
> be questionable, but LilyPond thinks of these
> types of repeats in similar ways. \repeat unfold
> does not copy the music n times, it just wraps it
> in UnfoldedRepeatedMusic.

It's worth remembering that \repeat unfold , like all \repeat variants,
accepts an \alternative clause.  And will probably be able to heed it.
I am not sure whether \repeat percent does so, but actually
interspersing material like <>\< <>\p or so would be perfectly
legitimate uses.  Whether they make for great syntax is a different
question...

-- 
David Kastrup