[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: music definition change in 2.9.9 or thereabouts?
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: music definition change in 2.9.9 or thereabouts? |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:39:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.1 |
On Friday 23 June 2006 20:59, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> 2006/6/20, Erik Sandberg <address@hidden>:
> > No. The underlying problem is that we now allow events that aren't
> > wrapped in event-chords. So the following:
> >
> > foo = c4
> >
> > could make foo contain a NoteEvent directly. (I think it currently wraps
> > the note in an EventChord, but I plan to change that). The problem is
> > that
>
> I'm not sure that this is an improvement;
FWIW, one reason for the change is that it's a step toward making music events
iterating themselves, without the help of event chords. I think that's a
long-term goal.
> if you do this, how will you deal
> with
>
> c4\glissando
>
> ?
The attached patch solves this problem: a music class 'post-event is added,
which contains events such as GlissandoEvent, that have no duration
and that should be attached to notes. That way, there is a way to distinguish
between music identifiers and post-event-identifiers.
I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but it fixes the bug.
I guess this is an academic music representation issue: Do you think that
there is a fundamental difference (non-syntactically) between events with
postfix syntax, and other events?
--
Erik
es-060626.diff
Description: Text Data
- Re: music definition change in 2.9.9 or thereabouts?,
Erik Sandberg <=