https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode69
Documentation/changes.tely:69:
Well, the original is already in (since it really should go into
2.19.0), so now we can polish the wording.
On 2014/01/05 02:40:56, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote:
You can now code free-standing duration items in a music sequence to
specify a
Too cumbersome. "code" rather than "write" seems strange, and "duration
items" seems also awkward. Is "free-standing" a reasonably idiomatic
term? "Isolated" is not all that good but was the best I came up with.
The usage in Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely is
Durations occuring on their own within a music sequence will take
their pitches from the preceding note or chord.
Maybe one should not try finding a term at all? One might write
something like
Durations can now be written in music expressions without an
immediately preceding pitch or chord. In the score, the missing
pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord.
Hm, not much better.
This may be useful for writing rhythms to percussion parts to make the
input
more readable, or for specifying rhythms for music or scheme
functions.
Here are two examples showing how this feature makes for much more
readable
input:
That's fine. "much more readable" may be a bit of an exaggeration.
But that's not the NR so we might get away with it.
https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
