lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

User comments on R shorthand


From: James Harkins
Subject: User comments on R shorthand
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:54:10 +0800

I apologize for weighing in on the R shorthand thread by sending a new
message. I read the digest and normally reply to messages by gmane.
However, for some unknown reason, "R shorthand" seems to be missing
entirely from gmane. It exists in the archives on lists.gnu.org.

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.

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 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)

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.

hjh



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]