Re: User comments on R shorthand

[Urs Liska]

Am 20.03.2013 16:25, schrieb James Harkins:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > - Old: R2  ==  a full measure rest in 2/4 time
> > > - New: R2  ==  *two* full measure rests in any time signature
> > Actually, I like this.  This would also help in situations like
> >
> >        tacet al <rehearsal number 54>
> >     |----------------------------------|
> Why would R*2 be so desperately painful that it would be worth
> breaking compatibility?
>
> I'm not saying I don't like the idea of R without a duration. I *am*
> saying that changing the meaning of the number immediately following R
> is a bad idea.
>
> One character solves that problem.
>
> > > That breaks backward compatibility.
> > convert-ly is your friend.
> Again... is it worth going this road over **one asterisk**? Really.
>
> hjh
I have the impression that Werner doesn't fight for the syntax *without 
asterisk* but that he is just in favor of a new option *without explicit 
duration*. I assume he would also feel "R*2" is an improvement.
Urs
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user