Kieren MacMillan <[email protected]> writes: > Hi David (et al.), > >> I have a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of >> >> { \time 2/4 r4*12 } >> { \time 2/4 R4*12 } >> >> as conveying the same semantics. > > I agree that the visuals of those two things do not convey the same semantics. > > That being said, I consider the following snippet: > > %%% SNIPPET BEGINS > \version "2.19.54" > > { \time 2/4 c''4*12 } > > \score { > { \time 2/4 c''4*12 } > \layout { > \context { > \Voice > \remove "Note_heads_engraver" > \consists "Completion_heads_engraver" > } > } > } > %%% SNIPPET ENDS > > The [note-data] *input* of these scores is identical — hence they ostensibly > convey the same semantics — but the *output* obviously conveys very different > semantics. So the addition of the Completion_heads_engraver *changes the > semantic space* in a non-trivial way, to the point that the original > semantics of the input are (as I understand it) impossible to represent in > the new output environment. > > As I read it, Simon is simply wondering why there isn’t an equivalent for > rests. > And suddenly I am, too. =)
Completion_rest_engraver is there. It doesn't change r into R . -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
