David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes:
> Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>>>
>>> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>>> >in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>>>
>>> Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> What about defining a
>> null
>> or
>> n
>> "note name"? Then we could write
>> c4 n\footnote
>
> What's the duration of
> <c n>
> ?
>
> What is the duration of
> n4
> ?
>
> Where is the point in a note name that does not take to the current
> duration? How is that making things simpler?
Though of course <>2 has the side effect of changing the current
duration in the parser to 2 without having a duration, either. All in
all, I find
<>-\markup { Something }
more natural for "no duration" than
n-\markup { Something }
And it also has a natural representation in music already.
\displayLilyMusic <>-\markup { Something }
displays
-\markup \line { "Something"}
Oops. Ok, need to fix that as well. But \displayMusic outputs
something sensible.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
