Hello, On 7 May 2012 06:50, Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote: > Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes: > >> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to >> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced >> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the >> current duration happens to be. > > I agree with Trevor. And with David in liking <> > > s1*0 is useful for markup at the beginning of a > multimeasure rest, quote, or cue, or at the end of a music > as in "D.S.alCoda". In these cases, the next note needs > an explicit duration anyway. > > Some people write triplets without the '3' as {c8*2/3 d e} > so they depend on LilyPond remembering the *n/m with the > duration. > > <> is less transparent, because a thoughtful user would > expect it to have the same duration of the previous note > or chord, or to be a syntax error. > > On the other hand, > 1) the chord construct is more familiar than skips
Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin. '<>' what is that? We already have \< \> -> -< (and combinatinos of ^-> --> _-< etc.) I absolutely take Graham's point that having a not uncommon sytax expression like '<< a4.(\->\<[^<>\markup {hello} \\ ...' is ugly - although I was thinking more of the syntax of Brainf**k (or sed) than Haskel. While s1*0 is not that pretty, it is at least easy to see and, at least for me anyway, clear of its meaning in an already crowded mess of non-alphanumeric characters. Put chorded notes in the mix << <a b c>\<^<>"Hello" \\ <a b c> >> (or something like that) yuk. > and > mulitplied durations are not familiar at all That's not an argument, that's just bad documentation. Why would we suddenly become familiar with <> over s1*0? Apart from the fact I disagree that they are not unfamiliar from and that I recall I ended up in a debate trying to get a relatively small change in to \partial documentation where it was implied that everyone knows about multipliers of duration and that \partial 8*3 was much clearer an example than \partial 4. > 2) empty constructs are familiar from > \score { ... \layout{} \midi{}} Apples and Oranges Plus they are preceded by meaningful statements. They have obvious context. It is possible to never have to use and of those, personally I never use \midi and hardly use \layout for my music. So it isn't as natural to 'get' blank constructs in your music like that as you think. > 3) its leaving the former default duration unchanged makes > it more generally useful: > { <>\mf \motif c4 d e f <>\p^"softer now" \motif g f e d} > So <> is a more helpful example for users than s1*0 was, > if the special case of its duration is noted in NR 1.5.1 > > Giving it a notation like 'n' for aesthetic purposes would > be putting lipstick on a pig. Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic? Regards James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel