[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Substitute for s1*0

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Substitute for s1*0
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 21:05:47 +0100

Nicolas Sceaux wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 8:32 PM

Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :

\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
} \addlyrics { Oh no }

\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> <>\!
} \addlyrics { Oh yes }

I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.

Yes, I now agree.  We can't continue to advocate s1*0
in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.

Now that this is settled, this leaves the question of using <> (which
already exists and works) or another new construct, eg. n or z or \null,
as a replacement for the broken s1*0 idiom.  Please let me quote (or
paraphrase) Montesquieu:

 It is sometimes necessary to change certain laws, but the case is rare,
 and should be undertaken with trembling hands.

This perfectly applies to parser changes in general, and to this case
in particular: n or z or \null is not at all a necessary change.
<> already exists, works on any LilyPond version, and has understandable
semantics once explicited in the doc.  Is there still a debate at this

Not from me: I expressed my opposition to a parser change already.

So at least three of us are now totally in agreement.  We explain
the semantics of <> and change all examples to use it.


reply via email to

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