Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > Am 02.04.2017 um 22:24 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: >>> Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup: >>>> R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of >>>> full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its >>>> length). Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other >>>> rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music. >>> But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7 >>> event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its >>> duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning >>> full measures and normal rests for the remainder? >> What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear? The >> rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments >> and different numbers of grobs. > > Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what part of this an engraver > can’t do.
The point is not that it can't be done but that it shouldn't be done. > Completion_rests_engraver checks for barlines and prints one or > multiple rests depending on these. Suppose someone™ made the effort > and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would > such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest > and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where > appropriate? Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
