"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>
>> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>> in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>
> Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
I disagree.
Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking (imagine
you are a naive user) from the following:
\new Staff <<
\relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
\relative c' { c4 d e f <>-\markup Wow c d e f g1 }
>>
That's not really a competition, is it?
> It is not intuitively obvious that an empty chord takes no
> time and does not affect the current duration, rather than
> being equivalent to an s, which of course takes the current
> duration.
>
> Perhaps both should appear in the documentation, with a
> word of explanation. Users can then choose which they prefer.
Multiplied durations are an advanced concept. I prefer leaving their
explanation for the cases where they are required rather than
introducing them as a "meme" with side effects quite beyond those
intended for the meme.
There would be a reasonably good case for letting the "current duration"
in the parser always retain a factor of 1/1 instead of the fully
multiplied duration. Or only consider durations with factor 1/1 for
duration tracking in the parser.
It would most likely almost always be more useful. It would also be
less consistent. In contrast, making <> be invisible to q is a rather
minimally invasive change which also makes sure that the total time of
music does not change because of expanding repeat chords.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
