[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grace synchronization
From: |
Reinhold Kainhofer |
Subject: |
Re: grace synchronization |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:51:17 +0200 |
On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
> grace time component (namely when no grace is present) was not set to 0,
> but to -inf, meaning everything comes before graces. Except those
> things that are actually preceded by graces.
Sounds reasonable.
But of course, then we run into the opposite problem: What if one voice has a
time sig between the grace and the note (grace moment 0), while another voice
has the corresponding time sig before the note without any grace (i.e.-inf)...
> The problem is that -inf will get a lot more visibility, likely also in
> user code.
I don't think this is an issue at all. I mean, not too long ago (before I
started looking at what caused that bug) I wasn't even aware that the grace
time was stored together with the real moment.
The only thing I would change is that in the output of a moment the grace
component would only be available if >-inf. But then, that's also how 0 is
currently handled, so this would clearly be changed, anyway.
Cheers,
Reinhold
Re: grace synchronization, Jonathan Wilkes, 2011/08/26
Re: grace synchronization, David Kastrup, 2011/08/26
- Re: grace synchronization,
Reinhold Kainhofer <=
- Re: grace synchronization, Hans Aberg, 2011/08/26
- Re: grace synchronization, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/26
- Re: grace synchronization, Keith OHara, 2011/08/27
- Re: grace synchronization, David Kastrup, 2011/08/27
- Re: grace synchronization, Hans Aberg, 2011/08/27
- Re: grace synchronization, David Kastrup, 2011/08/27
- Re: grace synchronization, Hans Aberg, 2011/08/27
Re: grace synchronization, David Kastrup, 2011/08/27