On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:04:50AM +0100, Ian Hulin wrote: > Hi all, > Point of information: > > On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Except \null has already been used as \markup command. I know > you can distinguish by context, but your argument here is about > readability.
Ok, I forgot about that, but \nullevent would still work -- or even just \event, or \timeless, or something along those lines. > You would really need a colour syntax-highlighting facility like > in Frescobaldi to make the distinction clear. or just pick a different word. > introduce a \placeholder > command which hardly anyone will use with the docstring I'd be ok with a \placeholder. > "This produces an event in the music stream that does not affect > note-spacing in the visual output from LilyPond, nor does it affect > the default note-duration in the parser. It is commonly abbreviated to > the empty chord symbol @code{<>}. It is commonly used to attach > markups and similar items where there may not always be a real note to > which to attach the item" Delete that "commonly abbreviated" sentence and I'd be all for that. If it's implemented internally as <> that's fine, provided we have a regtest that ensures that c4 \placeholder\whatever d4 works properly. > >>> Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic? > > 1+ > We're discussing preferred syntax. Yes. *shrug* We could postpone this discussion, or try to formalize this, or just declare that whoever can push whatever they want with the understanding that the whole debate will be re-opened when GLISS happens and the syntax may change. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel