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

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> 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:
> 
> I think = is too close (probably even conflicting) to assignments to
> make really sense.  Or I'd have suggested it for tremolos already: looks
> a lot more like tremolo bars than : does.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Quite true.
> 
> My current approach is "what would look best for both tremolo and
> chords" since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other.
> If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible,
> so much the better.

Does LilyPond use ;?  I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't
think of one.

What about c4;maj7?  It's a very small change, and I suppose the difference
between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused symbol AFAICS that
could readily be adapted for chords.

Thanks,

Carl