On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:54 PM, James Harkins <jamshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My opinion (as a somewhat-more-than-casual Lilypond user, and as a
> contributor to another music software package [SuperCollider]): Any
> change in syntax that will break prior usage should be considered
> very, very carefully to be sure the gains are worth it.
>
> The proposal is:
>
> - Old: R2 == a full measure rest in 2/4 time
> - New: R2 == *two* full measure rests in any time signature
>
> That breaks backward compatibility.
>
Apart from breaking backward functionality, it does so dramatically.
> I do agree with Kieren that it's annoying to have to enter durations
> for full measure rests, when the duration of the measure is known
> elsewhere. So I think some change, if possible, would be nice to have.
>
I agree, but it is difficult since the measure size can change, and as I
understand it the full-measure rest is treated the same way as any note or
rest or space event.
In my humble opinion a full-measure rest should be interpreted as a
full-measure rest, otherwise I could simply write it as a "metered rest"
and compress the rests with some magic. today this is not the case, it's a
special case of a "metered rest" where 'only' the rendering of the rest
will differ.
I think Joram's suggestion, R*n, makes a lot more sense. It's related
> to the current syntax, just more convenient, and it doesn't break
> existing uses since the parser can distinguish among all of the
> following unambiguously:
>
> R2 (a full measure rest in 2/4 time)
> R2*2 (two full measure rests in 2/4 time)
> R*2 (two full measure rests in any meter)
>
Since a full-measure rest is a different thing, why not make it look
differently?
I'm not in favor of using "R" for a full-measure rest since its behavior
differs from notes and rests.
Why not write \Rest{2} instead of R*2 or R2*2 for two 2/4 time full measure
rests?
The fact that Kieren's original proposal would change the meaning of
> the number immediately after R raises a red flag for me -- breaking
> compatibility, confusing current users once they are forced to adapt
> to the new syntax -- and the only gain over the second proposal is to
> lose a * after R. That falls far short of the threshold to justify
> breaking existing syntax, IMO.
>
> I'm strongly against Kieren's original idea. I'm cautiously in favor
> of Joram's alternative.
>
Time signatures are set differently than music expressions.
I think full-measure rests should be treated differently as well, to avoid
the confusion that will definitely appear when combining music expressions
and time signature changes.
Best regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
