Am 19.03.2013 20:41, schrieb David Kastrup:
Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes:
Hello all,
While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple
of R-elated observations/thoughts:
1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right?
So the duration ultimately makes no sense anyway.
2. The most elegant solution would be to use R (i.e., with no
duration) to represent a multimeasure rest, and it would "adapt" in
duration to whatever time signature was in force at that moment.
3. Then R14 (e.g.) would represent 14 *measures*, not beats/counts —
again, simpler, more elegant, and certainly more intuitive than the
current situation.
I am not sure about this. Yes, we are talking about full measure rests
any way, but R14 looks wrong to me.
If the duration could be omitted for R as you described, then I'd vote
for R being *one* measure and for R * 14 to get the desired 14 measures.
Would it be difficult to implement such a scheme (play-on-words
intended)?
One idea is that this makes it easy to switch between r and R. Also, R
is something that editors treat like note names.
We could promote using R1*3/4*14 in the documentation (for 5 measures of
14 measures?
3/4). That's reasonably brainless, but indeed more verbose than
desirable.
Or we could offer \tacet 14 without any relation to durations.
That sounds like a good thing to have. If this works with
\compressFullBarRests then it will be a nice feature.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
