On 2022-03-20 3:17 am, David Kastrup wrote:
Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes:
Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
compatibility would only need to exist for a time.
I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.
Natural, I can see. Proper... I would need more information backing
that claim. Certainly if there is a technical basis, I would be eager
to review it. If sound, then I could retract my proposal and answer the
email subject with "no".
In my timing/global/structure variables, expressions like \partial 4 s4
are common. Certainly \partial 4 would be most succinct, but it creates
no actual duration in sequential music. Naturally, the spacer rest is
used so later commands occur when I need them. My proposal leads to
\partial s4 as a reasonable construct that avoids redundancy. (See
below regarding NullVoice.)
A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
still allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a
future release would only support music as the argument.
4. _is_ valid music.
Yes, and it works with the updated \partial function. The only side
effect is that it might produce a visible note (of unspecified pitch),
because that is what 4. as music means. If used in a NullVoice context,
it should work the same as s4. which means we are back to the original
syntax. The key difference is that \partial 4. would now have musical
length.
-- Aaron Hill
