Re: forcing MultiMeasureRests to combine

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> It would be the job of the engraver for multimeasure rests.
>
> Good to know — thanks!
>
>> However, I have distinct problems imagining what the output of the following
>> should be if one were to combine multimeasure rests:
>
> I have no problem seeing the desired (at least by me) output of your
> example. The only rule that need be applied (AFAIK) is this: Any block
> of MMRs uninterrupted by notation events (n.b. this obviously excludes
> skips!) is compressed. All other items are printed as is (e.g., the
> final three s1 measures are spread out, because there are no
> simultaneous MMRs!) and cause a "de-compression split" at that moment.

You did not address the scripts attached to multimeasure rests.  When
combining multiple multimeasure rests, you may end up with fewer rests
than you started with (which is sort of the point), and with different
ranges.

That means that you don't have similar positions to apply the scripts
to, and you might have more scripts than multimeasure rests anyway.

What if a multimeasure rest is completely overlayed by material in the
same voice?  Not print it at all?

-- 
David Kastrup