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

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David (et al.),
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree that the visuals of those two things do not convey the same semantics.
>
> That being said, I consider the following snippet:
>
> %%%  SNIPPET BEGINS
> \version "2.19.54"
>
> { \time 2/4 c''4*12 }
>
> \score {
>     { \time 2/4 c''4*12 }
>     \layout {
>         \context {
>             \Voice
>             \remove "Note_heads_engraver"
>             \consists "Completion_heads_engraver"
>         }
>     }
> }
> %%%  SNIPPET ENDS
>
> The [note-data] *input* of these scores is identical — hence they ostensibly 
> convey the same semantics — but the *output* obviously conveys very different 
> semantics. So the addition of the Completion_heads_engraver *changes the 
> semantic space* in a non-trivial way, to the point that the original 
> semantics of the input are (as I understand it) impossible to represent in 
> the new output environment.
>
> As I read it, Simon is simply wondering why there isn’t an equivalent for 
> rests.
> And suddenly I am, too.  =)

Completion_rest_engraver is there.  It doesn't change r into R .

-- 
David Kastrup