On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin. > > But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the > advantage of _not_ tampering with the current duration in the parser, > and the disadvantage that it does not take post-events and thus is > totally pointless for this task) but s. s says nothing on the tin, you > need to look it up in the manual on its own.
wait, \skip and s aren't the same thing?? Leaving that question aside, we're talking about the preferred method of having something which does not tamper with the current duration but does take post-events. A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a different tool (such as a new \null or \nullevent) would be easier to read. > > I absolutely take Graham's point that having a not uncommon sytax > > expression like '<< a4.(\->\<[^<>\markup {hello} \\ ...' is ugly > > Reality check. <> is not new. And it is not what makes the above look > bad. Seriously? wow, we have radically different standards of readability. > Uh, <> (or < >) is precisely that: a chord. Which is the reason that it > works. Are you arguing that we should abolish chord syntax? No, we're not suggesting that we abolish chord syntax. But we *are* suggesting that a different method of indicating a non-duration post-event would be preferrable, and if we have such a method, we shouldn't encourage the use of <> for that task. > > Why would we suddenly become familiar with <> over s1*0? > > Because we already _are_. We are not talking about a proposed change in > functionality. We are talking about a proposed change in documentation. > I gave an example where s1*0 causes _totally_ unexpected results. Please stop the straw-men. Nobody thinks that s1*0 is the best method of indicating a non-duration post-event. > Are you > really holding a grudge because of the one-time comment from Janek Please stop the ad-hominen attacks. James and I are not holding any grudges. > > Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic? > > Reality check. <> has already worked for eternities. It would be GLISS > to _disallow_ it. I can see no reason for that. We're not proposing that we _disallow_ it. We're proposing that there might be a better way, and if we can agree on a better way, it would be good not to encourage the <> method. > Should we also disallow using { } and << >> instead of \sequential and > \simultaneous (which have been available since LilyPond 1.1 but do not > see much use)? Now you're just being ridiculous. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel