Re: Possible feature request for 'q' shorthand or tie syntax

[Janek Warchoł]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> For something like RhythmicStaff where pitches get squashed anyway,
>>> it might come in handy.  It would _not_, however, repeat chords,
>>> since you can't magically change a NoteEvent to an EventChord without
>>> changing the whole structure.
>>
>> pity.
>
> We have q to repeat chords, and for matching constructs to rhythms, one
> would employ more complex code anyway.  Even while one restricts oneself
> to "single note with last pitch", one would still have to decide about
> "last pitch".  Consider chords at all?  If so, pick their first pitch as
> reference?

i think that would be counter-intuitive.

> What about lyrics mode?  Is that worth deviating from the "only
> NoteEvent" rule?  How much sense makes repeating a syllable?

It happens sometimes.

>> good point.  So, i still think that we shouldn't allow "c2 4 4"
>> despite some really nice benefits it could bring us.
>
> Well, it won't affect previously valid programs.

Now i'm *totally* puzzled.  What do you mean by "programs"? Do you
mean that allowing standalone durations, like c2 d 4 4 => c2 d2 d4 d4,
wouldn't cause incompatibility with old scores?
Also, i remember you saying that allowing whitespace before duration
is needed for example in music functions:

makeAquarterNote = #(define-music-function (parser location note)
  (ly:pitch?)
  #{ $note 4 #})

How could this function be written if we allowed standalone durations
that repeat previous pitch?

> And it would have some nice side effects, including
> c4~ | 1~ | 2.
> with or without bar checks or spaces, and reasonably straightforward
> underpinnings and semantics.

That would be nice indeed.

cheers,
Janek