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

[Heikki Johannes Junes]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Tyler Eaves wrote:

> > 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 >> >>>
> >
>
> I see this as a very BAD idea. To me code (and I consider lilypond input
> code) should be as self explanitory as possible. Besides, that kind of
> nesting makes it WAY to easy to type the wrong number of characters (IE
> >> instead of >>>)

Hm. I did not suggest it as a syntax (it was written in my comment line).

I would like to specify what I consider `BAD' here:
  `<<<' cannot be used above, because `\score' combines not only music, but
  also typographical things, midi, lyrics, paper settings etc.

I agree that `<<<...>>>' is BAD syntax.

If there is maybe some academic point here which might be the following:
 (A) the `<' -type of is used to connect notes in a vertical manner.
 (B) the number of '<' marks shows size of the vertical group:
        0 : a single note has zero `<' mark
        1 : a chord of notes has one '<' mark, this is `linear polyphony'
        2 : a group of chords have two '<' marks, i.e. one '<<'
      ( 2 : a group of groups belongs to the previous one )

     The older syntax was less self-explanatory:
        0 : a single note
        2 : a chord of notes
        1 : a group of chords

Hence, I think the new syntax is the most self-explanatory:

 0, ''   : zero dimension, a note:         c1
 1, '<'  : one dimension,  a chord:        <c e>1
 2, '<<' : two dimensions, simultaneous:   << <c e>1 { <g bes>2 <f a>2 } >>

QED (quod erat demonstrandum, or quantum electrodynamics).

Greetings,

  Heikki Junes