Re: "repeat" slashes and the nature of lilypond

[wintryblue]

> By now, it is clear to everybody that you consider chord symbols to be
> graphical objects and nothing more. Since Lilypond allows that - with
> perhaps some tweaking here and there, and perhaps some minor syntactic
> sugar to make the process more comfortable - I guess you must be happy.
> 
> Then, what is the point of a statement such as the one above ? Myself,
> as well as a number of others believe that Lilypond's system ain't all
> that bad. Support for transposition is useful. We don't force you - or
> anyone, for that matter - to like it or to use it. You can do without
> it, that's ok with us. But please, don't feel as if you had the only
> truth in hand about what is or what is not useful, appropriate, correct,
> standard, good practice, etc.
> 
> Darius.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. I have a tendency to repeat myself.

Support for transposition is indeed useful, but I don't see how you
need the block chords to accomplish that. All you need is the base
notename; the symbols could carry from whatever notename you
specified.