Re: Issue 1067 in lilypond: Postfix syntax for repeats

[David Kastrup]

Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Freitag, 30. April 2010 10:04:42 schrieb address@hidden:
>> { music expression } * 4
>> instead of
>> \repeat unfold 4 { music expression }
>
> I  don't think this is a good idea with this syntax: How would you explain to 
> a new user the difference between the following two:
>
> {c1}*4
> c1*4

1*4 is a duration, *4 is a repeat factor.  If you want to have c1
repeated 4 times, write {c1}*4.

One _could_ thing about allowing c1*1*4 too, but that is a spectacularly
bad idea not just for readability:

You'll notice that when considering what

<< {c1}*4 >> does.

It creates a _sequence_, not a _stack_ of notes.  So the operation of *4
is _sequential_ like the sequence in the braces.  With << c1*1*4 >>
there is no sequential music inside.

Which makes it interesting to consider what to do about

MUSIC_IDENTIFIER * 4

My personal take would be to not split hairs and make a sequential
repetition regardless of whether MUSIC_IDENTIFIER happens to point to
sequential or parallel music.

-- 
David Kastrup