Well, we're mostly agreeing ;-). I wouldn't support pointing out the downsides of note+rest as suggested by Kieren nor I'm sure that I agree it's useful to know about note+rest: if \tweak is the proper way to do it, let's document that instead.
> > On Sep 2, 2022 at 9:44 PM, <Jean Abou Samra (mailto:[email protected])> > wrote: > > > > Le 02/09/2022 à 21:31, Martín Rincón Botero a écrit : > Hi Kieren, > > > how do you think that this feature is more useful than \tweaking the > > y-offset? If the documentation explains how to move a rest, the > > officially recommended way should be using \tweak in my opinion. It's > > unclear to me what's the use case of the option of adding a note to a > > \rest (which in itself sounds like a contradiction). If we follow the > > WSIWYM paradigm, you can't possibly mean to put a "note-rest" > somewhere. > Perhaps not pointing that out or removing the feature > altogether is > better in the long run? Reread Kieren's original message; I think you are > exactly agreeing with him :-) The transposition problem can be worked around > using \version "2.23.12" untransposable = \withMusicProperty untransposable > ##t \etc \transpose c f \voices 1,2 << { \untransposable c''8\rest b e' d' > } \\ { g16^1 f^2 g a } >> but of course, for this sort of use case, \tweak > Y-offset is better in the first place. I can't think of use cases where \rest > is really what you want, as opposed to \tweak Y-offset. Unless someone comes > up with an argument for it, I'd support a patch showing \tweak Y-offset in > the documentation and moving \rest to a footnote or undocumenting it > altogether. Whether its outright removal is desirable is another question. > This is veering into lilypond-devel territory, maybe we should continue the > discussion there? Alternatively, I'll be happy to continue on a patch on > GitLab :-) Cheers, Jean > >
