On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:37:00PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > > >>> Actually, if we have -{ ... }, we don't need `z' at all: > >>> > >>> c'1-{ s4 s\< s2 s\! }
This is a little bit unclear, since the final s\! would have the same duration as the previous s2, and thus would "go over" the duration limit of 1. I think there's still a need for a "event after the previous duration", i.e. c'1-{ s4 s\< s2 <>\! } c'1-{ s4 s\< s2 z\! } > >> (in your case 3/2) > > > > No. The `base' note has a length of 1/1. > > s4 + s4 + s2 + s2 is 3/2. You are asking for the last 1/2 to be > silently ignored, as opposed to what you want below: Not silently; if the duration exceeds the base note, there should be an error (or possibly merely a warning, like a barcheck warning). > > No, my idea is that everything `longer' than the base not gets ignored > > (causing a warning). > > Except when you think they should not cause a warning. This was due to the "how do we anchor an event after a duration" problem. > > I know that we are talking about syntactical sugar. > > The association to cavities is hard to avoid... Please avoid snarky comments in this discussion. Avoiding all sugar would have us writing music directly in scheme; the amount of sugar used is a matter of degree, not an absolute yes/no. > > What Graham suggests can be always written with << ... >> constructs. > > However, I share his feeling that many people (including me) are quite > > uncomfortable with using parallel music for attaching a crescendo to a > > note. Actually, for complicated situations, << ... >> is certainly > > more appropriate, but for simple cases I want a simpler notation. > > But the notation is not actually simpler at all, and it abuses existing > constructs. ok, it could be something else instead, c'1-< s4 s\< s2 z\! > c'1-<< s4 s\< s2 z\! >> c'1-{{ s4 s\< s2 z\! }} c'1\at{ s4 s\< s2 z\! } c'1\extra{ s4 s\< s2 z\! } > It is exactly the sort of thing that makes LilyPond > unsuitable as a reusable representation for music rather than a > write-only format that only humans and LilyPond itself can hope to > understand, if they are lucky. It would not have a reasonable Scheme > representation as Music expressions. I don't follow this. If we can produce an unambiguous "expansion" of c'1-<< s4 s\< s2 z\! >> into << { c'1 } { s4 s\< s2 z\! } >> then surely it can be expressed as music functions. (NB: before the "expansion", we give an error if there's any pitch-notes within the condensed version, so by assumption the expansion will only have s or z/<> constructs) I know that you are not convinced that this can be done unambiguously, but that's what we're talking about. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel