Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: >> >> I've no objection to the docs being changed to use an empty chord >> but its semantics will need to be introduced somewhere. The best place >> is probably the LM, in 2.2.4 Combining notes into chords. > > I'm still not happy with an empty chord, especially in the > Learning Manual.
Uh what? You prefer s1*0? Seriously? That's what we have right now. > I think it leads to the "perlization" of lilypond, where we end up > looking like a ridiculous language like Haskell. > > I'm ok with using <> as a quick hack for things like convert-ly > rules, so I'm not arguing against David's patch. Huh? <> has been supported since eternities. My patch merely removes some minor annoyances in relation to that, annoyances that are quite unlikely to be triggered anyway. > But I wouldn't want to see <> becoming part of our basic vocabulary. It already is. You can write it as < > if you find it looking dingy. While I have no clue what triggers your "perlization" or "ridiculous like Haskell" reflexes, maybe the space in between will help seeing it as two tokens? Personally, I rather lean towards writing an idiom compact, but maybe its its logic is easier recognizable with a space? > I still think that a "n" or "z" or "\null" would be more clear if > there's a solid reason to have such a "musical" "event" in a > non-computer-modified score. We currently have dozens of occurences of s1*0 for the sake of things like s1*0-\markup ..., and <>-\markup ... makes a lot more sense. If you want to, < >-\markup ... since the style of using it is still open. If people find < > clearer, it would make sense to use that style also when printing chords, and in convert-ly rules. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
