[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)
From: |
Wols Lists |
Subject: |
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion) |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:04:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 |
On 02/04/17 21:24, David Kastrup wrote:
>> But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7
>> > event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its
>> > duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning
>> > full measures and normal rests for the remainder?
> What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear? The
> rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments
> and different numbers of grobs.
Maybe the bit about "the syntax is meaningless in context?"
As I understand it, in the relevant context, "R" is meaningless but full
or multiple bar rests are printed anyway?
It's ancient music, so all our pre-concieved notions of "correct" are
pretty dodgy, anyway :-)
Cheers,
Wol
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), (continued)
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Noeck, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion),
Wols Lists <=