Hi all,
Point of information:
On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
> <snip>
>
> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a
> different tool (such as a new \null or \nullevent) would be easier
> to read.
>
Except \null has already been used as \markup command. I know you can
distinguish by context, but your argument here is about readability.
You would really need a colour syntax-highlighting facility like in
Frescobaldi to make the distinction clear.
There aren't any really nice alternatives, though we could legalize 0
as a duration for s only in the parser (yuk, adds another exception
case and just 1* out of the existing documented) or do some
hornswoggling in the documentation and , introduce a \placeholder
command which hardly anyone will use with the docstring
"This produces an event in the music stream that does not affect
note-spacing in the visual output from LilyPond, nor does it affect
the default note-duration in the parser. It is commonly abbreviated to
the empty chord symbol @code{<>}. It is commonly used to attach
markups and similar items where there may not always be a real note to
which to attach the item"
>
>>> I absolutely take Graham's point that having a not uncommon
>>> sytax expression like '<< a4.(\->\<[^<>\markup {hello} \\ ...'
>>> is ugly
>>
>> Reality check. <> is not new. And it is not what makes the
>> above look bad.
>
> Seriously? wow, we have radically different standards of
> readability.
>
>
>> Uh, <> (or < >) is precisely that: a chord. Which is the reason
>> that it works. Are you arguing that we should abolish chord
>> syntax?
>
> No, we're not suggesting that we abolish chord syntax. But we
> *are* suggesting that a different method of indicating a
> non-duration post-event would be preferrable, and if we have such a
> method, we shouldn't encourage the use of <> for that task.
>
>
>>> Why would we suddenly become familiar with <> over s1*0?
>>
>> Because we already _are_. We are not talking about a proposed
>> change in functionality. We are talking about a proposed change
>> in documentation. I gave an example where s1*0 causes _totally_
>> unexpected results.
>
> Please stop the straw-men. Nobody thinks that s1*0 is the best
> method of indicating a non-duration post-event.
>
>> Are you really holding a grudge because of the one-time comment
>> from Janek
>
> Please stop the ad-hominen attacks. James and I are not holding
> any grudges.
>
>>> Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic?
>>
1+
We're discussing preferred syntax.
>> Reality check. <> has already worked for eternities. It would
>> be GLISS to _disallow_ it. I can see no reason for that.
>
> We're not proposing that we _disallow_ it. We're proposing that
> there might be a better way, and if we can agree on a better way,
> it would be good not to encourage the <> method.
>
>> Should we also disallow using { } and << >> instead of
>> \sequential and \simultaneous (which have been available since
>> LilyPond 1.1 but do not see much use)?
>
> Now you're just being ridiculous.
>
... and you were trying to ride David's straw horse! :-)
> - Graham
Cheers,
Ian
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
