On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:04:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Basically every construct that we would be tempted to use <> or s1*0 for > occasionally is one that is not really attached to a note, but rather to > a moment in time.
I certainly agree that it would be good to be clear about "stuff" which is attached to a note vs. "stuff" which is attached to a moment in time. (either "the moment between notes" or "some moment within the previous / next note) > One argument might be that > c( c) > might look ugly, but less ugly than > (c )c > looks. Of course, neither is symmetric. IIRC, the old style in lilypond was: (c c) - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
