Re: Issue #768 - chord repetition shortcut: patch for review

[Marc Hohl]

David Kastrup schrieb:
> Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is patch implementing the chord repetition shortcut that has been
> > discussed a few times, for review:
> >
> >   <http://codereview.appspot.com/154056>
> >     
This is great!
> > I've chosed arbitrary defaults, which may be changed:
> > - the shortcut is `q';
> > - the function copying the previous chord only copies the chord pitches,
> > and removes all other decorations.
> > Both are customizable, but a sensible default from the beginning may be
> > preferable.
> >     
>
> A naive question:
>
> Could it be an option to make <c e g>4*8 do the obvious thing?  Or even
> { <c e g>4 }*8 ?
>
> That would be so much more natural.  The first already does something,
> but not something which I would call useful.  The second bombs out.
>
> In contrast, q feels rather hackish.
>   
There was a *long* thread some months ago about this, see for example

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-04/msg00160.html

I don't know whether 'q' is perfect (somebody proposed the mnemonical 
explanation
'quord' which sound chuite like 'chord'), others were in favor for 'x' 
as in 'expression',
but something like

<c e g>4  q  q  q

is visually easier to catch (at least for me) than

<c e g>4*4

because when I sketch some ideas down onto a piece of paper, I use some 
signs
for placeholders when the same chord appears consecutively,
like

C-7 / / /

(not to propose the '/' as a better choice instead of 'q'!)

and not C-7*4 (or even C-28 ;-)

Marc