Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> My current approach is "what would look best for both tremolo and
>> chords" since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or
>> other.  If there is a particular good combination that is downwards
>> compatible, so much the better.
>
> Does LilyPond use ;?  I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't
> think of one.
>
> What about c4;maj7?  It's a very small change, and I suppose the
> difference between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused
> symbol AFAICS that could readily be adapted for chords.

c4;7 does not really look anything like a chord.  Neither does c4:7, to
be honest.  So at best slightly worse.  Certainly would look like a
(hopefully) downward-compatible candidate for bringing the feature into
circulation before GLISS.  I think that c4/7 would look slightly better,
and it has the added "advantage" that / already is part of chord
notation.  It has the disadvantage of clashing with existing c4*2/3
badly.  Turning existing c4*2:8 into c4/8*2 looks like a saner approach:
one can theoretically declare a tremolo part of a (scalable) timing
specification (and it reads reasonably nicely), but a chord?

In contrast, ; appears like it could dodge the issue until GLISS.

-- 
David Kastrup