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

[Marc Hohl]

Am 20.09.2012 20:01, schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> > Le 20 sept. 2012 à 19:21, Graham Percival a écrit :
> >
> > > > A single note name is not that much longer to type than q.  If it is
> > > > really important to you, place the single note in a chord:
> > > > <des> is perfectly repeatable by q.
> > > What would we lose if every note was automatically a (single-note)
> > > chord?
> > That behavior is intended, so that you can write:
> >
> >    c <e g c'> g q c q g q
> >
> > And the idea, if you wanted to repeat the previous single note, is
> > to enclose it between < >.
> > q repeats the last chord, not the last note.  That's why it's named
> > chord repetition symbol.
> I thought the behaviour was intended to simplify things like
>    <c e g>4 q q q
Yes, but if you write some "hump-da hump-da" guitar or accordion
comping, then

c, < c e d > g, q c, q g, q

is quite fine; if c, is supposed to be < c; >, then this becomes

c, < c e g > g, < c e g > c, < c e g > g, < c e g >

so the advantage of q is completely lost in such cases.
> I'm particularly asking about making every note into a chord
> because that would make David's favorite <> construct a *lot* more
> consistent.  At the moment, we have
>    no note at a time unit: <>
>    single note at a time unit: c'4
>    multiple notes at a time unit: <c e g>4
from a mathematical/technical point of view, +1
for a musicians point of view rather not.

Regards,

Marc