[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 1.9.4 released/Request for comments: chord syntax!
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: 1.9.4 released/Request for comments: chord syntax! |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Sep 2003 01:32:28 -0700 |
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:06:39 +0200
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Chords are more often used than simultaneous music. Hence, using < >
> for chords saves keystrokes. However, the benefit is not large,
> since << and >> are rather easy to type.
Eh... it's not a big deal, but < > is still easier to type than << >>.
I guess that with practice, I can get used to holding down shift for
long enough to hit two "," (on my US-layout keyboard, you get < by
hitting shift-",". That may be different on some European keyboards).
But you don't hold down the shift key for two keystrokes for anything
else -- capitals in text don't happen right next to each other, apart
from acronyms.
> * How does readability change? I have the impression that the old
> syntax is more readable than the new one, i.e. that
I respectfully disagree -- I find <a2 b> much more readable than
<<a2 b>>, especially when there's a lot of chords.
I also haven't been keeping up with the recent syntax changes -- how
certain is the change from "<a2 b>" to "<a b>2" ? I've had a lot of
practice writing the earlier version, and I also find it more readable
-- in the new version, if I want to find out how long
<a c e g>8 will be, my eyes need to skip from the first <a to the >8,
then back to read the notes of the chord. Would it be possible to
support both versions?
> My feeling is that << >> stands out better in the text, and that in
> the < > version the chord-pitches do not appear to form groups.
I find that the < > version _does_ form groups. I agree with your
first sentence -- << >> stands out better. But that's why I dislike
it. A chord isn't all _that_ special.
...
ok, I've just realized that I don't know what the difference is between
chords and simultaneous. I always thought that a chord was just a one-note
simultaneous section (without the \\ voices).
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: 1.9.4 released/Request for comments: chord syntax!,
Graham Percival <=