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

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:06:39 +0200
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> * 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.

Eh... it's not a big deal, but < > is still easier to type than << >>. 
I guess that with practice, I can get used to holding down shift for
long enough to hit two "," (on my US-layout keyboard, you get < by
hitting shift-",".  That may be different on some European keyboards). 
But you don't hold down the shift key for two keystrokes for anything
else -- capitals in text don't happen right next to each other, apart
from acronyms.

> * How does readability change?  I have the impression that the old
>   syntax is more readable than the new one, i.e. that

I respectfully disagree -- I find <a2 b> much more readable than
<<a2 b>>, especially when there's a lot of chords.

I also haven't been keeping up with the recent syntax changes -- how
certain is the change from "<a2 b>" to "<a b>2" ?  I've had a lot of
practice writing the earlier version, and I also find it more readable
-- in the new version, if I want to find out how long
<a c e g>8 will be, my eyes need to skip from the first <a to the >8,
then back to read the notes of the chord.  Would it be possible to
support both versions?
 
>   My feeling is that << >> stands out better in the text, and that in
>   the < > version the chord-pitches do not appear to form groups.

I find that the < > version _does_ form groups.  I agree with your
first sentence -- << >> stands out better.  But that's why I dislike
it.  A chord isn't all _that_ special.

...
ok, I've just realized that I don't know what the difference is between
chords and simultaneous.  I always thought that a chord was just a one-note
simultaneous section (without the \\ voices).

Cheers,
- Graham