Re: forcing MultiMeasureRests to combine

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> You did not address the scripts attached to multimeasure rests.
>
> Not sure what you mean here — other than the "A" and the "B" (both of
> which I addressed in my modified snippet), what scripts were there in
> your original snippet?

You attached them to rests different from the original rests.

>> When combining multiple multimeasure rests, you may end up with fewer
>> rests than you started with (which is sort of the point), and with
>> different ranges.
>
> Yes. And…?

Which means that you attach corresponding scripts to different locations
as before.

>> That means that you don't have similar positions to apply the scripts
>> to, and you might have more scripts than multimeasure rests anyway.
>
> I believe both my example and my rule handle these situations without
> trouble.

Then we are obviously talking about different things.

>> What if a multimeasure rest is completely overlayed by material
>> in the same voice?  Not print it at all?
>
> Here again is my single rule:
>
>     Compress all contiguous blocks of MMRs uninterrupted by other
> notate-able items (e.g., "material", "scripts", regular rests, etc.).
>
> This rule, as I interpret it, is capable of handling everything
> brought up in your response.

I don't see that you even address scripts _on_ a multimeasure rest.
Your reasoning becomes circular.

> Perhaps equivalently (for 99% of my purposes) would be this rule:
>
>     Simultaneous skip events should be ignored when compressing MMRs.
>
> Is that easier to understand and/or implement?

Use \skip rather than s.

-- 
David Kastrup