Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Trevor Daniels]

Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:48 AM


> Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Yes, I now agree.  We can't continue to advocate s1*0
> > in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
>
> I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1 
> Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
>
> Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were instigated 
> by me, so I see how to avoid them.

This seems like a sensible way forward.  Let's take it a
step at a time:

1. Raise a bug report to highlight the problems of s1*0,
giving the <> workaround.  That seems standard procedure
for the bug squad - a problem has been identified and a
workaround suggested.  David - thanks for alerting us to 
this!

2. Document the semantics of <> in NR 1.5.1.  Does anyone
dissent from this?  Ian has already provided a reasonable
first draft.

3. Look at the individual uses of s1*0 and see first if its 
use can be avoided.  We can discuss each of these individually,
considering the relative merits of using alternative approaches 
(if any) or using <>.

Trevor