[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: command for 'sequences'?

From: David Raleigh Arnold
Subject: Re: command for 'sequences'?
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:22:04 -0500

jos wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> >
> > Nice thought.  \Seq1?  (down by default) \Seq5up?   What about
> > accidentals?
> >
> > I would guess that macros within xemacs would actually save more typing
> > than
> > commands in lilypond when what you are doing is composition shortcuts.
> > I don't know whether or not there is any interest or movement in that
> > direction.  I floated that as a way of making tab more versatile while
> > keeping it easy to type, but nothing has happened.
> HI!
> In a sequence there are (per definition) no accidentals.

Of course there can be chromatics in a sequence that is not chromatic,
as long as it is not entirely chromatic.  c b c
as c a c g f e d c....b as b a b g b f e d c b...  See Villa Lobos
Prelude 3 for guitar.  It is not even uncommon.  perhaps the definition
precision, like defining the time value of a note as its duration. ;-) 
Unfortunately, this sort of thing makes writing a macro somewhat more
difficult, but it is also why it is such a better idea to do it as a
macro rather than to scramble the syntax with it.
> And yes, I also made some vim macro's to do that, some time ago.
> But I misplaced them unfortunately and have to program them
> again. Well, maybe that is the best  idea anyway...
> best regards,
> jos

I'm sure the original poster would appreciate it.  I think this was on
-user, so I hope you don't mind.  You don't like xemacs?  I
thought emacs was the "official" editor.  Thanks in any case.  :-)

Information is not knowledge.           Belief is not
truth.                  --Anon            David Raleigh Arnold  

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]