[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond lobbying?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Lilypond lobbying?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:54:12 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

"Dmytro O. Redchuk" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:59 David Kastrup wrote:
>> Your complaint about my code focused on the consequences of doing the
>> crescendo in a separate voice.  Which I did not do.
> I am sorry.
>> So could you focus your critique on << c1 { s4 s2\< s4\! } >> (or
>> whatever the exact timing was) rather than on your multi-voice strawman?
> No, I could not.
> I don't like this way of adjusting hairpins. Nothing more.
> Probably, if I _would_ be musician, I would not like (too!) this way
> because of those strange "spacing rests" (what is "spacing rest" in
> music after all?),

Perhaps they are not named well.

The documentation states:

   A spacer rest implicitly causes `Staff' and `Voice' contexts to be
created if none exist, just like notes and rests do:

   `\skip' simply skips musical time; it creates no output of any kind.

That implies that s would be different in that respect.  Which is
misleading at best: s may require a voice context (and create it if it
isn't there) and affects its default duration, but does not create
output of any kind itself either.

{ s1 s s }

produces exactly the same output as

\context Voice { \skip 1 \skip 1 \skip 1 }

So maybe the "spacer rest" terminology is not doing anybody a favor.

Would you have felt more comfortable if my example had used "\skip"
instead of "spacer rests"?

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]