Re: Shortcut for epeated chords?

[Papa Eric]

Thanks to all for anwering so quickly!

I don't know Scheme, but Looking at files like italiano.ly, I see that 
it supports macros:
-------------------
pitchnamesItaliano = #`(
        (dobb . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-FLAT))
        (dobsb . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 THREE-Q-FLAT))
        (dob . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 FLAT))
        (dosb . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SEMI-FLAT))
...
#(ly:parser-set-note-names parser pitchnames)
-----------

is it possible to more note-name-like items to the list for example

setx . a function that takes the following expression which must be a 
chord, and stores it in some dynamically accessible variable X. It 
returns nothing (substituted with nothing).

x . a function that takes an integer argument and return stored X with 
duration modified accordingly

xtie. a function same as x adding a tie

etc...


The idea is that with those fake notes:

{ a8 b setx <a b c d> x#8 x#16 xtie#4 x#8 }

would render like { a8 b <a b c>8 <a b c>16 <a b c>4~ | <a b c>8 }

being intermediary { a8 b \x #8 \x #16 \xtie #4 | \x #8 } with the first 
argument to each \x actually <a b c>8 but hidden in a dynamic/global 
variable rebound at each setx?

Is this idea feasible?

Joseph Wakeling a écrit :
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > No; we understand it quite well.
>
> > From what I could see, Mats' example did not implement what was requested.
>
> > Adding something like this to the basic syntax could be quite
> > problematic.  We already get enough complaints about changing the
> > syntax, so we certainly shouldn't rush to add a new construction
> > like this.
>
> Fair enough.  I _do_ understand that.  I would also note that it's only
> a relevant consideration if you want Lilypond's syntax to be focused on
> being human-*writeable*, rather than human-readable.
>
> > I suggest that you try writing a scheme function that meets your
> > needs; once it's done, submit it to LSR and share it with other
> > people.  In a few months or years, if it's a widely, we may add it
> > to the official lilypond packages.
>
> I don't have any knowledge/experience with Scheme right now, but do plan
> to change that; if at that point I can implement this idea, I'll give it
> a go.