Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 22:24 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
> > Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
> > > full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
> > > length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
> > > rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.
> > But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7
> > event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its
> > duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning
> > full measures and normal rests for the remainder?
> What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear?  The
> rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments
> and different numbers of grobs.

Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what part of this an engraver 
can’t do. Completion_rests_engraver checks for barlines and prints one 
or multiple rests depending on these. Suppose someone™ made the effort 
and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would 
such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest and 
Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where appropriate?

Best, Simon