Le 6 mai 2012 à 23:54, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> No. I don't see the point of introducing yet another notation to
> do the same thing. <> and s1*0 already exist and work. Having
> a third method would make LP even more obtuse, IMO -
> unless you're advocating nobbling s1*0 and/or <> so they
> don't work as they do.
Actually, <> works and s1*0 does not always. Example:
\new Staff <<
\new Voice = "notes" { c'4 d' e' f' }
<>^"blah"
\lyricsto "notes" \new Lyrics { do re mi fa }
>>
=> compiles and renders perfectly fine.
\new Staff <<
\new Voice = "notes" { c'4 d' e' f' }
s4*0^"blah"
\lyricsto "notes" \new Lyrics { do re mi fa }
>>
=> triggers warnings and wrong output.
I've adopted it in my scores the minute I've seen David's post
suggesting using <> iso s1*0.
Even though at first sight it seemed to work well "by chance", it's easy
to explain its meaning in the documentation, as there is understandable
semantics behind: a chord with no note takes no time.
It's not a syntactic hack. The perlization argument does not hold.
And it's already there! Apart from the few minor issues detected by David,
it works on any version. So indeed, why add new syntactic structures when we
already have it? The parser does not need new special cases, after the
efforts for reducing them.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
