Re: Possible feature request for 'q' shorthand or tie syntax

[james]

On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:16 PM, Marc Hohl wrote:

> Am 20.09.2012 20:01, schrieb Graham Percival:
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
>>> Le 20 sept. 2012 à 19:21, Graham Percival a écrit :
>>> 
>>>>> A single note name is not that much longer to type than q.  If it is
>>>>> really important to you, place the single note in a chord:
>>>>> <des> is perfectly repeatable by q.
>>>> What would we lose if every note was automatically a (single-note)
>>>> chord?
>>> That behavior is intended, so that you can write:
>>> 
>>>   c <e g c'> g q c q g q
>>> 
>>> And the idea, if you wanted to repeat the previous single note, is
>>> to enclose it between < >.
>>> q repeats the last chord, not the last note.  That's why it's named
>>> chord repetition symbol.
>> I thought the behaviour was intended to simplify things like
>>   <c e g>4 q q q
> Yes, but if you write some "hump-da hump-da" guitar or accordion
> comping, then
> 
> c, < c e d > g, q c, q g, q
> 
> is quite fine; if c, is supposed to be < c; >, then this becomes
> 
> c, < c e g > g, < c e g > c, < c e g > g, < c e g >
> 
> so the advantage of q is completely lost in such cases.
>> 
>> I'm particularly asking about making every note into a chord
>> because that would make David's favorite <> construct a *lot* more
>> consistent.  At the moment, we have
>>   no note at a time unit: <>
>>   single note at a time unit: c'4
>>   multiple notes at a time unit: <c e g>4
> from a mathematical/technical point of view, +1
> for a musicians point of view rather not.

I agree completely about this. Perhaps a solution would be a different shortcut 
to repeat the previous note, regardless whether chord or single note?