Re: severe chord repetition problem

[Alexander Kobel]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Actually, if q stands for "last _chord_" rather than "last note event",
> then removing octave indicators is not sufficient since intervening
> notes might have shifted the meaning.

Correct, that's the remaining drawback from the 
notes-chord-memorization; otherwise, this one perfectly fits /my/ usual 
needs.


> > But let it be clear: if LilyPond changes, it is no problem for me to
> > adapt Frescobaldi. If 2.14 ships with 'q' I'll do my best to have
> > Frescobaldi support it.
>
> If the meaning is defined well enough.

I tend to use very simple tools - Emacs that is, in this case, without 
much sophisticated input shortcuts (like lyqi) - so I could not image 
where the problem might be to allow exchanging the memorization 
function, as long as the input is parseable. As most not-too-experienced 
programmers I tend to be overly self-confident, and say "I'm gonna 
understand this if it's written there". Even when I'm going to read 
files, especially since I agree with Nicolas in:
> On the other hand... which ratio of users might ever change the behavior
> of chord repetition memorization?  I don't really think that readability
> might suffer, as long as the default is the most convenient.
> For instance, users can also completely change the note names [...]
And such a change should catch my eye.

But when it comes to editor support, things change. (In particular: a 
feature I'm desperately missing with my primitive input methods is 
actually already featured by other editors, so there might not be the 
need for it that I assume.)
Wilbert changed my opinions here - now, it looks like Nicolas' first 
idea of copying everything (well, perhaps everything but rests) may be 
what's actually needed more often. And it looks both easier maintainable 
and more robust than the notes-chord-memorization (see above.)


You (especially David i.e., but also Nicolas and Wilbert) certainly 
proved a clearer mind on such issues than me, and I agree with your 
concerns.
Still, since I'm happy to see that notes-chord-memorization gives me a 
feature I've been subconsciously craving for, and I'd be sad if it's 
removed again:
Is it okay to have an exchangable policy as long as it is very 
"low-level", i.e. there are no commands inviting to write them every two 
lines, but only something like the current syntax to replace the 
repetition-memorization-function? Is it reasonable to have only one of 
those methods officially supported and recommended, the other 
deprecated, yet available? (Assuming it's not as prominently advertized 
as \parallelMusic, of course.)


Cheers,
Alexander