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

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/29/10 2:48 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
>>> voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
>>> preferable to me.  Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by
>>> extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy.
>> 
>> I understood this proposal
> 
> I'm not understanding any of these proposals.  :)
> 
>> as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode,
>> and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream.  That's
>> what I was responding to.  If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with
>> another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that.
> 
> If anything happens before GLISS -- and I'm not claiming that it
> will -- then we *will* have a duplicate syntax for chords.
> 
> We're not making a major change like removing \chordmode until
> after GLISS.  I'm willing to consider adding new commands (like
> \chord), as long as it's understood that they might _also_ change
> after GLISS (so the command might only exist for 6-18 months in
> total).

OK.  I guess I was looking at this as a step to eliminating the *need* for
chordmode and deprecating it (as was suggested by David originally).  Of
course chordmode won't be eliminated until 3.0 (because we're in a syntax
freeze), but I think that if we want to eliminate anything in 3.0, we'd
better have some good experience with alternatives, either in 2.13.x or
2.15.x.

I was *not* envisioning these changes as a change to chordmode syntax.

Thanks,

Carl