Am 20.03.2013 09:55, schrieb David Kastrup:
Jan-Peter Voigt writes:
[...]
(ly:make-duration (inexact->exact (/ (log den)(log 2))) ...
That's a terribly broken thing to do. inexact->exact does not change
the value one bit, only its interpretation. A number considered to be
_approxima
Jan-Peter Voigt writes:
[...]
> (ly:make-duration (inexact->exact (/ (log den)(log 2))) ...
That's a terribly broken thing to do. inexact->exact does not change
the value one bit, only its interpretation. A number considered to be
_approximated_ by integer*2^power is now considered to b
Am 20.03.2013 02:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
Kieren MacMillan writes:
Hi Shane,
What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14?
I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward length"…
I'm suggesting that R (with no duration given) should give you a
one-measure multi-measure rest, r
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi Shane,
>
>> What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward length"…
>
> I'm suggesting that R (with no duration given) should give you a
> one-measure multi-measure rest, regardless of what the measure
> dur
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:38:10 -0400
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> > one would think that might cause more difficult
> > programming necessitating the keeping tracking of various R values
> > through out the piece as defined by a time signature as opposed to us
> > setting the value, whi
Hi Shane,
> one would think that might cause more difficult
> programming necessitating the keeping tracking of various R values
> through out the piece as defined by a time signature as opposed to us
> setting the value, which probably would also slow down lilypond having
> to parse and hang on t
I see now, but one would think that might cause more difficult
programming necessitating the keeping tracking of various R values
through out the piece as defined by a time signature as opposed to us
setting the value, which probably would also slow down lilypond having
to parse and hang on to that
Even while I am a bit sceptical whether the syntax for R should differ
from r, I see your point.
Rather than R14 for a 14 measure rest, I would suggest to keep the
syntax close to the one before: R*14 (This way I would almost be
convinced ;) )
Could the duration be optional this way, keeping the
Hi Shane,
> What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14?
I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward length"…
I'm suggesting that R (with no duration given) should give you a one-measure
multi-measure rest, regardless of what the measure duration is.
And that Rx (where x is an int
Kieren,
What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14?
Shane
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Kieren MacMillan
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple of
> R-elated observations/thoughts:
>
> 1. We shouldn't be encouragin
Am 19.03.2013 20:41, schrieb David Kastrup:
Kieren MacMillan writes:
Hello all,
While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple
of R-elated observations/thoughts:
1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right?
So the duration ultimately makes no
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hello all,
>
> While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple
> of R-elated observations/thoughts:
>
> 1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right?
> So the duration ultimately makes no sense anyway.
> 2. The most elegan
Hello all,
While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple of
R-elated observations/thoughts:
1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right? So the
duration ultimately makes no sense anyway.
2. The most elegant solution would be to use R (i.e., wit
13 matches
Mail list logo
