lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Substitute for s1*0

 From: Trevor Daniels Subject: Re: Substitute for s1*0 Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 22:54:33 +0100

```
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:24 PM

```
```I'm still not happy with an empty chord, especially in the
Learning Manual.  I think it leads to the "perlization" of
lilypond, where we end up looking like a ridiculous language like
```
```
My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
current duration happens to be.  That's all.   (It could be
```
thought to insert a blank chord with a length equal to the current duration). Then should it be used elsewhere at least
```the explanation has been given.

```
```I'm ok with using <> as a quick hack for things like convert-ly
rules, so I'm not arguing against David's patch.  But I wouldn't
want to see <> becoming part of our basic vocabulary.  I still
think that a "n" or "z" or "\null" would be more clear if there's
a solid reason to have such a "musical" "event" in a
non-computer-modified score.
```
```
No.  I don't see the point of introducing yet another notation to
do the same thing.  <> and s1*0 already exist and work.  Having
a third method would make LP even more obtuse, IMO -
unless you're advocating nobbling s1*0 and/or <> so they
don't work as they do.

Trevor

```

reply via email to