David Wright <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri 27 Apr 2018 at 14:58:13 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote: >> David Wright <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > I would assume it's because this notation (which arrived too late for >> > me to make use of when it would have been handy¹) is designed for >> > percussion and lets you write, say: >> > >> > snare8 8 8 8 r2 R1 8 8 8 8 r2 >> > >> > ¹ a spoken work. >> >> For example. I agree that pitched rests at least seem like they might >> make a reasonable candidate for repetition in that manner even though it >> could beg the question of why unpitched rests aren't. >> >> There are no fundamental technical reasons to do one or the other. This >> is just the current implementation choice. If changes are to be made, >> it would likely be smart to do that before 2.20 gets released. > > Well, I don't know how the decision was arrived at,
Not consciously made. I cooked up that feature and that was what I ended implementing. Never thought about pitched rests at all. I think there may have been some minor bit of discussion, but basically I wrote the Scheme code expand-repeat-notes! without much feedback and review and it looked at chords (actually rhythmic events in chords, not just note events: that looks fishy though probably takes some tomfoolery to trigger) and note events. > but my own view is that it's the correct one. The duration-only > notation is aimed at people writing rhythms, and they write them for > instruments that play notes (and pseudonotes like snare above). They > don't compose rythmic riffs for rests and spacers. Cage will have a word with you. But yes, that sounds reasonable to me as a defense of the current behavior. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
