I mean it's not a Lilypond specific construct. Duration log + augmentation dots is a music notation construct that Lilypond faithfully represents using a type named duration. I don't think there's any inherent reason that representation of musical time is more deserving of the name duration than what we're calling musicLength. In English, we don't have a separate word to distinguish between those concepts. But it's important to be transparent which type is expected by a given property. It does users no favors to hide complexity under the rug if they will trip over it as soon as they get advanced enough to start tweaking output via Scheme.
Kieren earlier spoke in favor of whatever is most comprehensible to users. To me, musicLength seems completely clear and unambiguous. Unless there's a proposal that accomplishes the same thing while also being more elegant, I don't really see the argument against it. On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:47 PM Trevor Bača <trevorb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:02 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Trevor Bača <trevorb...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > I am concerned by what seems to be an unwillingness to use the term > > > "duration" to label things in the system that are clearly durations. > > > > Computers are not fond of ambiguities. I am concerned by what seems to > > be an unwillingness to use consistent terminology while expecting > > consistent results. > > > > Hi David, is what's at stake here a desire to use the word "duration" to > mean just the LilyPond-specific construct that looks like ... > > 4.. > 16 > 16. > 32.. > > ... and so on? > > Is that what's going on here? > > -- > Trevor Bača > www.trevorbaca.com > soundcloud.com/trevorbaca >
