On 2012/06/01 22:21:46, Keith wrote:
The issue was that s1*0 can affect the default duration of the next
note, while
<> does not, but the solution of <> was tempered by opinions that <>
is cryptic.
This implies that this patch is trying to solve the issue. It doesn't. It merely provides the information required to see what chords in general are and how <> fits in, and to see what << >> in general is (and in particular what it is not) and how chords fit in. This information was conspiculously absent for the most part. This is groundwork. It does not actually tackle issue 2522, merely makes it easier to start.
s1*0 is rarely used. The uses I find, in documentation and
mutopiaproject, are
to attach a post-fix notation to an object where it is inconvenient or impossible to postfix the notation.
This patch fails to explain how <> solves the difficulty for with
people have
used s1*0. Instead, it demonstrates the considerable leeway to
transform clear
input to cryptic input, without changing the resulting output.
I agree that the examples don't show a useful application: that would actually already constitute part of issue 2522: not just telling how <> works, but how it can be useful. The intent of the examples is to show equivalences. Of course, only one of the equivalences is ever needed. At this section of the manual, more complex/abstract constructs that are _better_ solved using <> and/or parallel music are not easy to come by without exceeding the complexity already understood by the reader. So I welcome any examples/passages which do the job better. I agree with you that the question "why?" is not answered. http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
