Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[David Kastrup]

Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> writes:

> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
>>>>> limited power
>>>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support
>>>>> both
>>>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
>>>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music;
>>>>> but the
>>>>> following does seem to work:
>> ...
>> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
>> different.
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>>     \partial 4. 4.
>>   }
>> }
>> \score {
>>   \fixed c' {
>>     \partial c4. c4.
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.

I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.

> A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
> this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
> still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a
> future release would only support music as the argument.

4. _is_ valid music.

-- 
David Kastrup