Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?

[David Kastrup]

Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden> writes:

> 2010/4/28 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement.  I'd have
>> expected "don't change current tremolo syntax". address@hidden has some
>> mnemonic value ("play a quarter at eighths", oops sounds like a time).
>> But I don't like its look.  Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
>
> My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
> preference:
>
> 1. "don't change current tremolo syntax"  :)
>
> You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
> syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
> Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords?  I mean, does
> it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
> If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
> keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:

I think = is too close (probably even conflicting) to assignments to
make really sense.  Or I'd have suggested it for tremolos already: looks
a lot more like tremolo bars than : does.

> Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
> \chordmode .  Equivalent of
>   \chordmode { c1 g a g c }
> won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.

Quite true.

My current approach is "what would look best for both tremolo and
chords" since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other.
If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible,
so much the better.

> But I don't think we will find another syntax as mnemonic as the
> current one, and without side-effects (ex: '/', see Reinhold's msg).

I am still not convinced that slashes would not work (see my previous
reply to Reinhold).  The question is whether the reasonably nice
mnemonic syntax is worth the potential user confusion in some rather
esoteric border cases.

> LilyPond syntax is already so "unstable", why should I change my
> tremolo habits, because of the will to "get rid of \chordmode"?

The answer would be "because the overall result feels more satisfactory
in the long run to most users".  Of course, that depends on us finding
such an overall result and getting some sort of agreement on it.

I find that folding chord syntax into music mode makes a lot of sense.
But that does not mean that I am already convinced of the best syntax
for doing it.

-- 
David Kastrup