Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?

[Xavier Scheuer]

2010/4/28 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

> Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement.  I'd have
> expected "don't change current tremolo syntax". address@hidden has some
> mnemonic value ("play a quarter at eighths", oops sounds like a time).
> But I don't like its look.  Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?

My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
preference:

1. "don't change current tremolo syntax"  :)

You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords?  I mean, does
it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
  – already existing;
  – widely used;
  – actually I find the current syntax really mnemonic, ':' also means
    "divided": cf. "a c quarter note, divided into eighths".

Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
\chordmode .  Equivalent of
  \chordmode { c1 g a g c }
won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.



2. OK, let's do some compromises and change tremolos syntax.

But I don't think we will find another syntax as mnemonic as the
current one, and without side-effects (ex: '/', see Reinhold's msg).

LilyPond syntax is already so "unstable", why should I change my
tremolo habits, because of the will to "get rid of \chordmode"?

Of course, I'm *certainly* biased and also a bit in "bad faith".  :)

No offense,
Xavier

--
Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>