Re: R shorthand

[Shane Brandes]

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 extra undeclared information. Of course
maybe i am wrong on that. But I do believe making sure the user is
forced to think out the value of R duration is probably more useful
than any minimal convenience, especially as Joram points out that
would make r and R functionality divergent.

Shane

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Joram Berger <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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 current behaviour
> if given? I mean could this change request be implemented without
> affecting the recommended way at present? Probably not, because of
> ambiguities, and because the following notes would take the same duration.
>
> Cheers,
> Joram
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user