On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:21 AM Raphael Mankin <r...@mankin.org.uk> wrote:
> > > 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, to my eye, it looks like an empty chord, which makes some sense. > > At least section 1.2.2 of the reference manual ought to be updated to > include <> in the discussion of invisible rests. > Can you share how you would want that section changed? Or I could take a stab at it, but it may not be what you want. Also, <> can be used for a lot of different things that aren't rests, so maybe that section of the Notation manual is not the best place for it.
