[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Explicit default duration?
From: |
Dan Eble |
Subject: |
Re: Explicit default duration? |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:33:28 -0500 |
On Jan 23, 2023, at 18:05, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works> writes:
>
>> On Jan 23, 2023, at 10:11, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not saying that 0 is the best choice here. It merely appears to be
>>> rather cheap. I thought of * and / but the first renders sequences like
>>> c4*2 ambiguous and the second would at least become a mess in chord
>>> mode.
>>
>> Can you clarify how `c4*2` would be ambiguous? (I was about to
>> suggest `r*1` for your original example.)
>
> c4*2 could be read as c4 c4 c2 if all of 4 * 2 are interpreted as
> individual durations.
I see. I was thinking not of using '*' as a duration, but of omitting the
duration part of r4*1.
r4 quarter rest
r rest of default duration
r4*2/3 quarter rest compressed to 2/3 of its duration
r*2/3 rest of the default duration, compressed to 2/3 of it
So r*1 would use the unscaled default duration.
—
Dan
- Re: Explicit default duration?, (continued)
- Re: Explicit default duration?, Aaron Hill, 2023/01/23
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, Luca Fascione, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, Aaron Hill, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, Dan Eble, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/26
- Re: Explicit default duration?, Dan Eble, 2023/01/23
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/23
- Re: Explicit default duration?,
Dan Eble <=
- Re: Explicit default duration?, David Kastrup, 2023/01/23
Re: Explicit default duration?, Benkő Pál, 2023/01/23