On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > I've no objection to the docs being changed to use an empty chord > but its semantics will need to be introduced somewhere. The best place > is probably the LM, in 2.2.4 Combining notes into chords.
I'm still not happy with an empty chord, especially in the Learning Manual. I think it leads to the "perlization" of lilypond, where we end up looking like a ridiculous language like Haskell. I'm ok with using <> as a quick hack for things like convert-ly rules, so I'm not arguing against David's patch. But I wouldn't want to see <> becoming part of our basic vocabulary. I still think that a "n" or "z" or "\null" would be more clear if there's a solid reason to have such a "musical" "event" in a non-computer-modified score. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
