Re: 1.9.4 released/Request for comments: chord syntax!

[Heikki Johannes Junes]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

>
> NOTE-NOTE-NOTE-NOTE-NOTE-NOTE
> *****************************
> 1.9.4 is an experimental release: the documentation does NOT compile!
>
> Hi there,
>
> I have just put up 1.9.4. For this release I have changed the chord
> syntax: effectively, <<  >> and < > have been swapped. I would like to
> hear your commments on this change.

For structural point of view, this change is toward right direction.
Consider different levels of commenting:

%%% this is a comment in the beginnin of a line
\score {
    %% this is a comment which follows the indenting level
    \notes { c1 }              % this is an end-line comment
}

Here the end-line comment which refers to the smallest structural element
has the least number of `%' -marks. As the structural elements becomes
bigger, the beginning `%%%' comment mark refers already to the whole
score.

Similarly, one could imagine a syntax, with increasing size of
structural element:

  \score { \simultaneous { <c e>2 <g c'>2 } }

would be

  <<< << <c e>2 <g c'>2 >> >>>

This was an example, not even a proposition for a new syntax.

> * Chords are more often used than simultaneous music. Hence, using < >
>   for chords saves keystrokes.  However, the benefit is not large,
>   since << and >> are rather easy to type.

I think the number of `<' or '>' marks should rather refer to the size
of the structural element: (1) chords, (2) simultaneous, (3) etc.?

> * How does readability change?  I have the impression that the old
>   syntax is more readable than the new one, i.e. that
>
> Since readability is more important than efficient typing, my own
> feeling is that this change might not be a good idea.

Readability can be increased by syntax coloring.

> What is your opinion? Is this a good change or not?

I'd vote for good.

Greetings,

  Heikki Junes