Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi David, > > this refers to > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-07/msg00144.html > I opened a new thread, because this one will be about rest-markups only. > > rest-by-number-markup and rest-markup were impemented by myself > commit ffa21bb1a55d2436bb432c4dff7ec04df95dc6f0 > My second patch at all.
Ah, I thought that it wasn't quite in the line of code I see you doing these days. A few corners looked like copying idioms of David Nalesnik in cases for which they appeared overengineered. > I saw no reason to distuingish rest and mm-rest in markup-mode, as we > need to do in music (one is an item the other a spanner). Hence I've > put them all in one markup-command. Where is the point in having one markup-command that needs a flag to distinguish two different cases that are so fundamentally different that they even take different arguments? Now the thing is that with the new change in place, we would not necessarily _need_ different arguments: an integral multiplier larger than 1 could be taken as a multi-measure rest count, like {1*4} So we likely _could_ get away with a single command: multipliers don't seem to make much sense in the context of markup rests. I am not sure that is a good idea, though. rest-markup would then have a convenient way of its own to flag multimeasure rests while rest-by-number-markup could not make use of it. > Nevertheless, attached you'll find a first attempt to disentangle > them. > > What do you think? I have to take a look first. I've been dry-musing yet. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel