Re: A proposal of organize music paragraph layout by a new DSL

[K.L.]

D.C. & D.S. does not matter most.

We may deem this layout code as a new transform function, like \articulate.
By this, we can ignore all repeat marks & brackets structure when writing
voice contents. Once the layout expands, we will get \repeat volta, \repeat
segno and so on, and they will be *consistent* in all voices automatically.

The gain comes from this fact: music paragraph layout and voice content are
*orthogonal* in a multi-voice music. So it's better to disentangle them.

Without layout structures, we can store music staff in a more regular way,
like this:

[image: image.png]

Imagine blank cells filled with lilypond code for every measure. We can
easily map the music sheet to lilypond code segments:

[image: image.png]
 Measure to measure, color to voice, then we can develop a popup code
editor UI on music sheet for a focus measure, with real time comparison.

Just a thought😄

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:00 PM Dan Eble <dan@faithful.be> wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2020, at 05:20, K.L. <k.l.lambda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We can define a new DSL to express all kinds of repeat types, including
> > volta, volta-alternative and *D.C. al Fine* and so on. For some examples:
> . . .
> >
> > Via this, exact MIDI performing for D.C. & D.S. can also be done.
>
> I doubt that it is necessary to increase complexity so much to take care
> of typical D.C. and D.S. repeats.  I've had it in mind to try adding a new
> repeat type, \repeat segno N {…}.  It would lay out the music like a volta
> repeat, but using the appropriate marks and jump instructions rather than
> volta brackets and repeat bar lines.
>
> About a "D.S. al (crosshairs) e poi la Coda" layout in general, Gould says
> that "the example above may be difficult to negotiate" and encourages
> considering whether writing out the sections in full might be better for
> rehearsal/performance (Behind Bars, p.239).
> —
> Dan
>
>