[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion) |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:33:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:
> 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. =)
Completion_rest_engraver is there. It doesn't change r into R .
--
David Kastrup
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), (continued)
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Noeck, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion),
David Kastrup <=
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Wols Lists, 2017/04/03