Re: rest/mm-rest-markup

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
> this refers to
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-07/msg00144.html
> I opened a new thread, because this one will be about rest-markups only.
>
> rest-by-number-markup and rest-markup were impemented by myself
> commit ffa21bb1a55d2436bb432c4dff7ec04df95dc6f0
> My second patch at all.

Ah, I thought that it wasn't quite in the line of code I see you doing
these days.  A few corners looked like copying idioms of David Nalesnik
in cases for which they appeared overengineered.

> I saw no reason to distuingish rest and mm-rest in markup-mode, as we
> need to do in music (one is an item the other a spanner). Hence I've
> put them all in one markup-command.

Where is the point in having one markup-command that needs a flag to
distinguish two different cases that are so fundamentally different that
they even take different arguments?


Now the thing is that with the new change in place, we would not
necessarily _need_ different arguments: an integral multiplier larger
than 1 could be taken as a multi-measure rest count, like

{1*4}

So we likely _could_ get away with a single command: multipliers don't
seem to make much sense in the context of markup rests.  I am not sure
that is a good idea, though.  rest-markup would then have a convenient
way of its own to flag multimeasure rests while rest-by-number-markup
could not make use of it.

> Nevertheless, attached you'll find a first attempt to disentangle
> them.
>
> What do you think?

I have to take a look first.  I've been dry-musing yet.

-- 
David Kastrup