On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 4:15 PM Saul Tobin <saul.james.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Please step outside LilyPond for a moment. Do you see books written about music and musicians, or about music theory, using the phrase "music length"? When you spend time with a score, getting ready to analyze it, do you look at the "music length" of notes and rests on the page? If you were going to write about a piece of music to a friend or colleague, would you write about the variety of "music lengths" you find in the piece? -- Trevor Bača www.trevorbaca.com soundcloud.com/trevorbaca
