lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

 From: Valentin Petzel Subject: Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration? Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 12:34:13 +0100

I do not really like the idea that much to be honest. Of course it would be
cool if we just have to specify the music and no duration, but in the end
\partial is not really a command about the music, but about the measure
structure. Binding it to some music would be a bit like having \time take some
music, even though it does not need it.

This means that filling music into a structure becomes much weirder, requiring
the use of artificial << ... >> statements to parallelize things. E.g. compare
these two statements:

{
\time 6/8 \partial 4.
\repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
}

\new Staff {
\time 6/8
<<
\partial s4.
\repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
>>
}

Clearly the second way is absolutely not beautiful, readable or intuitive.
Additionally \partial will not start a new measure, which leads to potentially
confusing behaviour.

One the other hand the benefit of this functionality is so minimal that I do
not think it is worth it. Instead I’d say doing something as Werner proposed
and have a new function with a self-explanatory name like \upbeat music for
this would surely be preferable.

Also from a standpoint of efficiency: This would force us to put each partial
measure into sequential music, which means  writings lots of braces, and at
least I personally find writing braces less efficient than writing numbers.

Cheers,
Valentin

Am Sonntag, 20. März 2022, 05:35:46 CET schrieb Aaron Hill:
> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> >>>> power
> >>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support
> >>>> both
> >>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
> >>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but
> >>>> the
> >
> >>>> following does seem to work:
> > ...
> >
> > I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> > different.
> >
> > \score {
> >
> >   \fixed c' {
> >
> >     \partial 4. 4.
> >
> >   }
> >
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >
> >   \fixed c' {
> >
> >     \partial c4. c4.
> >
> >   }
> >
> > }
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  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.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.