Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Suppose someone™ made the effort
>>> and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would
>>> such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest
>>> and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where
>>> appropriate?
>> Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other.
>
> Now that’s what I wanted to discuss – sorry for insisting. r and R are
> /engraved/ differently, but – thinking outside the box – as far as I
> can see, there is no semantic difference.

If that's what you wanted to discuss, then how about actually discussing
it rather than making apodictic statements?  I gave an example.  I have
a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of

{ \time 2/4 r4*12 }
{ \time 2/4 R4*12 }

as conveying the same semantics.

-- 
David Kastrup