Eluze <elu...@gmail.com> writes:
> Pavel Roskin wrote
>> If rests are omitted, they should not collide with anything. But they
>> do. Example:
>>
>> I get a warning:
>>
>> rests.ly:6:20: warning: cannot resolve rest collision: rest direction not
>> set
>> \new Voice {
>> r4 }
>
> if you omit "\omit Rest" you get exactly the same messages!
>
> so I think polyphonic notation with \voiceXXX should be used.
I think the point was that if the rest is getting omitted, it should not
have a chance to be colliding with anything.
Basically, the expectation being that \omit r4 and s4 should be
equivalent. It is a plausible expectation, but it seems like matching
this class of expectations consistently could amount to quite a lot of
work. At least in this particular case, I don't really see what the
return would be: this does not look like anything that could not better
be done using other commands.
Partly it might be the fault of having constructed a minimal example:
one that clearly shows the perceived symptom, but not really a
compelling motivation for wanting to change the behavior.
Perhaps some more info about the use case might help with prioritizing
this?
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
