Hi Jean,
Yes this explains my confusion. I was assuming that all of these techniques
were equivalent. I will take the time to learn how the different approaches
alter the spacing and I will choose what I need.
To answer what I meant about bifurcating the bracket:
You are correct that understanding the underlying code makes this behavior
more expected but here is what I thought *before* your explanation. “No one
would ever want the output resulting from puting skips in the tuplets, it’s
basically inconsistent *music notation*.” If the bracket is supposed to
avoid the skips (this thought is my fallacy!) Then the result should be s4
* 2/3 \times 2/3 {c'4} s4 * 2/3 \times 2/3 {c'4 c'4} s4 * 2/3 meaning I
would expect the brackets to wrap around the non-skips and avoid even the
inner skips, which is not the current behavior. What it felt like from the
user end was that lilypond was *deliberately coercing* the bracket to avoid
the skips, which I as a user am totally able to do manually, so I didn’t
like that feeling. But now understanding that s, \omit Rest, and \hide Rest
all work at different times in the engraving process, I now understand that
the behavior is not “inconsistent” or “coercive” like I thought. The
behavior is merely a cascade from the point in time that the spacing is
"ignored". I am sorry that I did not know this, because now it appears
somewhat obvious that the commands are not equivalent.
regards,
greg
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:35 AM Jean Abou Samra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are three different ways to have some invisible pause:
>
> 1. s
> 2. \once \hide Rest r
> 3. \once \omit Rest r
>
> None of these are equivalent. A hidden rest is basically just like a
> normal rest, with all the typesetting done with this normal rest in mind,
> except that the rest is skipped while doing the final drawing. An omitted
> rest is a rest, but with its drawing removed earlier during the typesetting
> phase, so that, for example, its extent does not factor in other things;
> but it's still a rest that exists. And a skip is the most radical option:
> from the typesetting point of view, it creates nothing at all. There is no
> grob associated with a skip.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by a bracket “bifurcating” itself. What
> should that look like, visually?
>
> To me, the behavior is not so different from beams: you can sometimes see
> things like
>
> \version "2.24.1"
>
> \fixed c' <<
> { d16[ s d s d s d s d s d s d s d] s }
> \\
> { s16 d[ s d s d s d s d s d s d s d] }
> >>
>
> but I have never seen
>
> \version "2.24.1"
>
> \fixed c' <<
> { d16[ s d s d s d s d s d s d s d \once \omit Rest r] }
> \\
> { \once \omit Rest r16[ d s d s d s d s d s d s d s d] }
> >>
>
> I can see why “your” behavior can make sense, I'm just explaining why the
> handling of skips in tuplet brackets is relatively consistent with some
> other things.
>
> By calling it a bug, I didn't mean to sound aggressive.
>
> No worries, I didn't interpret it so.
>
> Jean
>
--
gregory rowland evans
http://www.gregoryrowlandevans.com
https://github.com/GregoryREvans
https://soundcloud.com/gregory-rowland-evans
