Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For unbeamed notes, we have to draw the line somewhere, and >> it's at 64th right now. If someone can show a reasonable use >> for 128th we >> *might* consider it, but my initial reaction is that you >> should reconsider your use of notation >> > > I don't have an axe to grind here, as I've never used anything smaller > than a 32nd in music I've worked with. > > I did notice, however, when I looked at the Plaine and Easie format > specification, <http://www.iaml.info/files/plaine_easie_code.pdf> I > noticed that P&E supports up to a 128th note, I also noticed that there > is no "name" for a 128th note; a 64th is a hemidemisemiquaver. > > The lack of a name for a 128th note would indicate that a 64th is a > reasonable smallest note. The presence of a 128th note in P&E syntax > might indicate that a 128th note is a reasonable smallest note.
This talk of 'reconsidering your notation' and 'reasonable shortest notes' is rather disturbing. Clearly, composers *do* use 128th (and shorter) notes, both beamed and unbeamed: therefore lilypond *should* support them. The musical notation should be chosen by the composer, not the tool. It is not the job of software writers to dictate what is or is not 'reasonable'. -- Mark Knoop _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
