Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:48 AM
Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1
Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were instigated
by me, so I see how to avoid them.
This seems like a sensible way forward. Let's take it a
step at a time:
1. Raise a bug report to highlight the problems of s1*0,
giving the <> workaround. That seems standard procedure
for the bug squad - a problem has been identified and a
workaround suggested. David - thanks for alerting us to
this!
2. Document the semantics of <> in NR 1.5.1. Does anyone
dissent from this? Ian has already provided a reasonable
first draft.
3. Look at the individual uses of s1*0 and see first if its
use can be avoided. We can discuss each of these individually,
considering the relative merits of using alternative approaches
(if any) or using <>.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
