Re: Possible feature request for 'q' shorthand or tie syntax

[Marc Hohl]

Am 23.09.2012 14:40, schrieb James:
> Hello,
>
> [...]
> > This construct doesn't allow for mixing single notes with
> > chords.
> I see. Hmm...yes that's awkward.
>
>
> > There are instruments and music styles which greatly
> > benefit from having 'q' available, whereas others don't,
> > I write a lot of music for guitar (and recently, I had to
> > typeset music for accordion, too) and there is a
> > great advantage in both typing *and* readability
> > between
> >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> > b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> >
> > and
> >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 q
> >
> > (assuming you have switched on \tabChordRepetition).
> I'm still not sure I am convinced. Amount of typing? Sure you have to
> type less - perhaps (depending on how many 'q' chars you need) but
> readability is subjective it seems (i.e. I don't use q, you do I don't
> find q that readable at all simply because I read from the left to
> right and then see a q and have to jump back left to recall what it is
> repeating (just in case I missed something) whereas explicitly writing
> out \repeat chord {music expression} is easy - forget about the mixing
> notes with chords for now, I _do_ take that point however.
>
> > > [...](I find reading other's lilypond sources that use 'q'
> > > significantly akin to reading technical documentation where every 4th
> > > word is an acronym or abbreviation).
> > I'd just say the opposite; in my example above, any change in the
> > chord is not as easily spotted when you write out everyting:
> >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> > b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2
> > b\1 > b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> >
> > as opposed to
> >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> > e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 > b,,\6 q e,\5 q b,,\6 q
> >
> > In the lower example, you see at first glance that the last chord
> > in the first measure changes.
> That's just how a person writes out his file; I found the example you
> gave poor in that I can see the line length doesn't match so I could
> see instantly the change.
Well, I try to put at least a full measure in one line, so the example 
was very much
something I use in my pieces.
> So to try to take the same examples:
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 q
> e,\5 q
> b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 q
> e,\5 q
> b,,\6 q
>
> vs
>
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 < b,\4 d\3 fis\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> e,8\5 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
> b,,\6 < b,\4 e\3 g\2 b\1 >
>
> By the time I get to the last line in the first example, I've
> forgotten what q is repeating :) so I have to jump back - what was q
> again? etc. The second example here is straightforward, sure it
> doesn't tell me what has changed compared to X instance, but neither
> does q (at least in long passages).
Ok, it seems that people using 'q' like it and find it easy to type and 
to read,
whereas others don't like it and therefore do not use it – it's a mere 
philosophical
question.

> Actually this is probably why I've never bothered to use q for
> accordion bass lines on my own compositions, but create variables like
> \cmindimsev \cminor \gminorfive etc. in the lilypond file then use
> \repeat unfold, so when I have lots of repetitive chords and then
> sudden and small passage changes I don't have to care what the
> 'previous' chord was to make sure I have it right, I already know what
> it is now, because what my eye is reading is what the chord really is
> - if that makes sense to you?
Ok, that's another possibility – *if* we could use variable names like
em7, c7b5 and store chords in that, this would be even better, but this
yields to yet another big amount of philosophical mails ;-)

To be honest, I use this way of defining chords, too, but with 'q', I like
the possibility of changing the duration easily. If that were possible with
 e8 \eminor e \eminor ~ \eminor \eminor4. , I think I would not miss 'q'
that much if it had to go.

> >From a novice's point of view q on the face of it is handy, but handy
> in the sense that some of the LSR hacks are handy, it just seems so
> unlike/inconsistent with any of the other commands we use in LP. I
> don't personally have any feelings about whether q is good/bad, I can
> see it certainly makes typing quicker, what I was wondering was is the
> q 'function' holding back and/or preventing other parts of the .ly
> language from being improved/more streamlined in the lexer & parser
> work that David is working on.
Good point. And basically, I support the idea of enhancing the
\repeat ... { stuff } construct – I merely wanted to show that
there are situations where the repeat construct would not work.

Regards,

Marc