Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

>> Why couldn't you write
>> <c e g>4 s4*3
>> or similar?
>
> I might be able to... but with your suggested "fix" of the * symbol,
>
>   R1*8
>
> would end up as
>
>   R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
>
> and potentially not compress.

Depends on the details of implementing * I guess.

> This unwanted behaviour along with the loss of (e.g.)
>
>   <c e g>4 q8-. q8-> ~ q2
>
> would be unfortunate.

Well, never mind the q, it is orthogonal to the * behavior.
Implementing * as expected does not necessitate throwing out q.  But I
have to say that an unadorned / would seem more logical than q.

-- 
David Kastrup