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

[Jim Long]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:55:35PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > But if stand-alone durations (like a '4' standing by itself)
> > could inherit the previous pitch (somewhat symmetric to how a
> > stand-alone pitch inherits the previous duration), one could
> > write:
> >
> > c1 ~ | 4 cis dis cis ~ | 1
> 
> So is c4 c c 2 the same as c4 c4 c2 or as c4 c4 c4 c2 ?

Hmmm...  I just ran a test, and I was not previously aware that
'c 2' was valid.  I have been under the incorrect assumption that
whitespace was not allowed between a pitch/chord and its
duration.  In other words, I thought once whitespace has been
found, the previous token was complete.  Not currently the case,
apparently.  As I said earlier, I'm enjoying the learning
process.

Here's the rule I'm envisioning.  I'm going to change the horizontal
string to vertical for illustration:

c4      pitch specified, duration specified
c       pitch specified, duration (4) implied from previous duration
c       pitch specified, duration (4) implied from previous duration
2       duration specified, pitch (c) implied from previous pitch(es)

c4 c c 2 would be the same as c4 c4 c4 c2.

A pitch or chord with an explicit duration would have to have no
whitespace in between, as c2 or <f a c>1.  Thus, c2 c 2 would be
three notes, all half notes, all on pitch c, and <f a c> 1 would
be two chords, one with an implied duration not determinable from
this example, and one with a duration of a whole note.

Just a show of hands if anyone is reading this far, is the syntax

'c 4  c    4     c      4  c4'

widely used (whitespace exaggerated)?  I'm not a frescobaldi user
nor any of the other lilypond-aware tools, but do they generate
lily-code that puts whitespace between pitches/chords and
durations?  Just wondering whether I'm an eccentric to always
write c4 and <bes d>2 and never f  1 or <c e g>    16.

> q was _explicitly_ changed to _only_ repeat chords _after_ extensive
> discussion.  The first approach was repetition of _both_ notes and
> chords, and people were not happy with it.

I respect their happiness and propose no changes to q.  Absent my
proposed concept of an implied pitch, if a 'p' shortcut can be
implemented easily, I would find it to be a welcome and useful
addition.  If not, I'm accustomed to its absense, no there's no
harm in discussion.

> Note names should be short enough on their own to make this not really
> worth the trouble.

I don't consider 'character length' a relevant argument either
for or against.  Durations are short enough, too.  Even shorter,
in fact, since almost all durations are 1 or 2 characters, but
two-thirds of pitches (14 out of 21) are three characters (in
lily's default Dutch).  It's about compressing out the redundant
information in the lilypond input notation so that when you take
a motif and change the pitches involved you have fewer moving
parts to worry about.  I may be more alone in facing this problem
than I had thought.

So I'll leave my proposal at this stage.  I was not aware that

f





                                                             4

was the same as

f4

so I can see that my proposal breaks the current syntax, which 
is certainly a drawback.  But I feel like I have at least
sufficiently outlined my idea.

Thanks again for all you do.

Jim



\relative c' {
  \partial 8
  d16 16 |
  8 16 16 8 16 16 g8 a b d,16 16 |
  8 16 16 g8 b a fis d 16 16 |
  8 16 16 8 16 16 g8 a b g16 b |
  d4~16 c b a g8 b g4 |
}

--


\relative c' {
  \partial 2
  r8 f4 8
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 8 4. r8 f4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 2    r8 f4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 8 4. r8 f4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 2    r8 bes4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 8 4. r8 bes4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 4. r8 r f4 8 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8~| 8 4 8~8 8 4 |
  4 8 8~8 4 8 |
}