Raphael Mankin <r...@mankin.org.uk> writes: > On 10/01/2024 10:35, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote: >> >>> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a >>> programmer >>> for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If s0 is more >>> intuitive then that should be considered for future inclusion. >> It's intuitive to me that s0 means a spacer rest of infinite >> duration, >> because it's one whole note divided by zero. And it opens the door >> to using 0 as a duration denominator for other things than "s", as in "c0" >> and "<c e g>0", let alone constructions like "s0." which would seem to be >> a spacer of one and one half times infinite duration. I don't think it's >> a good idea to open those doors. There doesn't seem to be any way to >> allow zero as the duration denominator except as a unique exception; it >> cannot be done in a way that's consistent with other syntax. >> > I agree that 0 as a denominator would seem to indicate an infinite > duration, and allow the rest of your argument. However <> still seems > unintuitive.
Well, there's been discussion about using z but then what would z with a duration mean, and z is not just unintuitive in that you would not think of writing it without knowing it but also unintuitive because you have no way to know what it is when reading it. <> at least is comprised of known elemeents. -- David Kastrup
