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

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi David (et al.),

> I have a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of
> 
> { \time 2/4 r4*12 }
> { \time 2/4 R4*12 }
> 
> as conveying the same semantics.

I agree that the visuals of those two things do not convey the same semantics.

That being said, I consider the following snippet:

%%%  SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.19.54"

{ \time 2/4 c''4*12 }

\score {
    { \time 2/4 c''4*12 }
    \layout {
        \context {
            \Voice
            \remove "Note_heads_engraver"
            \consists "Completion_heads_engraver"
        }
    }
}
%%%  SNIPPET ENDS

The [note-data] *input* of these scores is identical — hence they ostensibly 
convey the same semantics — but the *output* obviously conveys very different 
semantics. So the addition of the Completion_heads_engraver *changes the 
semantic space* in a non-trivial way, to the point that the original semantics 
of the input are (as I understand it) impossible to represent in the new output 
environment.

As I read it, Simon is simply wondering why there isn’t an equivalent for rests.
And suddenly I am, too.  =)

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden