Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works> writes: > On Jun 5, 2022, at 08:36, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> While I agree with Dan that at the current point of time Moment is >> definitely overloaded too much (this has historical reasons since it had >> been the _only_ Scheme-accessible version of the Rational type, with >> Rational being required before Guile gained its own implementation of >> rational numbers), we disagree about where to draw the lines and how >> many of them. > > I don't like to tell people who enjoy coding in Scheme how it should > be done. If you want to use a single type for points in the musical > timeline and for distances between points, that is fine. Calling that > type "moment" is problematic.
I can second that. The name is not particularly fabulous for all of the semantics coming with the type. It's more like CommonTime or something. At the same time, it is the kind of historical baggage where at least I am rather doubtful of the value of changing it. We get so many posts where the reply is "have you run convert-ly?" for much less invasive changes that I doubt this is worth the trouble: it would invalidate most of the LSR, for example, unless we retain lots of backward-compatibility functions in which case the adoption will be chaotic and the backlash only delayed. -- David Kastrup
