James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 06/01/14 18:12, d...@gnu.org wrote:
>> On 2014/01/06 16:24:24, t.daniels_treda.co.uk wrote:
>>> mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote Monday, January 06, 2014 3:27 PM
>>
>>> > 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.
>>
>>> Yes, and even simpler:
>>
>>> Durations can be written in music expressions without an
>>> immediately preceding pitch or chord --- the missing
>>> pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord.
>>
>> Ah, but they won't. It's only during scorification that the missing
>> pitches get filled in. Now of course there is little point in trying to
>> pick a wording that is technically more accurate without the reader
>> having a chance to guess that until he figures it out on his own.
>>
>> Feels a little bit like how "congressional oversight" (well, the
>> equivocating rather than the blunt perjury). Any idea how to write this
>> appropriate for this level without omitting the information that the
>> note events will stay pitchless until scorification time?
> Can't we just show an @lilypond example?
I'm a bit at a loss here: \displayLilyMusic demonstrates that no pitches
have been filled in (like it would with q chord repeats) but that's not
much of an example. And for anything occuring in a score, the pitches
will be there. One could do something like
\relative { c'4 c' c' }
as opposed to
\relative { c'4 4 4 }
as this makes clear that at least at the time \relative is executed the
pitches are not yet available for getting mangled.
https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
