On 27 April 2018 at 14:58, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > David Wright <lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > > > On Fri 27 Apr 2018 at 13:49:24 (+0200), Gianmaria Lari wrote: > >> On 27 April 2018 at 11:56, Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Gianmaria, > >> > > >> > The shorthand of using a duration number only applies to notes, not > rests. > >> > > >> > As per the NR: > >> > > >> > Isolated durations – durations without a pitch – that occur within a > music > >> > sequence will take their pitch from the preceding note or chord. > >> > > >> > > >> > That is how it is. More learned fellows may be able to offer the > technical > >> > explanation underlying this. > >> > > >> > Andrew > >> > > >> > > >> Thank you for pointing me out the documentation. > >> > >> If "d4 4 " -> "d4 d4" I would expect "r4 4" -> "r4 r4" and "s4 4" -> "s4 > >> s4". What was the reason to make lilypond handle pitch and rest > differently? > > > > I would assume it's because this notation (which arrived too late for > > me to make use of when it would have been handy¹) is designed for > > percussion and lets you write, say: > > > > snare8 8 8 8 r2 R1 8 8 8 8 r2 > > > > ¹ a spoken work. > > For example. I agree that pitched rests at least seem like they might > make a reasonable candidate for repetition in that manner even though it > could beg the question of why unpitched rests aren't. > > There are no fundamental technical reasons to do one or the other. This > is just the current implementation choice. If changes are to be made, > it would likely be smart to do that before 2.20 gets released.
How it is decided this type of things? Is the lilypond community that express his opinion or something different? g.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
