[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

From: Aaron Hill
Subject: Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 04:05:49 -0700

On 2022-03-20 3:17 am, David Kastrup wrote:
Aaron Hill <> writes:
Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
compatibility would only need to exist for a time.

I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.

Natural, I can see. Proper... I would need more information backing that claim. Certainly if there is a technical basis, I would be eager to review it. If sound, then I could retract my proposal and answer the email subject with "no".

In my timing/global/structure variables, expressions like \partial 4 s4 are common. Certainly \partial 4 would be most succinct, but it creates no actual duration in sequential music. Naturally, the spacer rest is used so later commands occur when I need them. My proposal leads to \partial s4 as a reasonable construct that avoids redundancy. (See below regarding NullVoice.)

A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a
future release would only support music as the argument.

4. _is_ valid music.

Yes, and it works with the updated \partial function. The only side effect is that it might produce a visible note (of unspecified pitch), because that is what 4. as music means. If used in a NullVoice context, it should work the same as s4. which means we are back to the original syntax. The key difference is that \partial 4. would now have musical length.

-- Aaron Hill

reply via email to

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