Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup: >>> 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. > > Now that’s what I wanted to discuss – sorry for insisting. r and R are > /engraved/ differently, but – thinking outside the box – as far as I > can see, there is no semantic difference.
If that's what you wanted to discuss, then how about actually discussing it rather than making apodictic statements? I gave an example. I have a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of { \time 2/4 r4*12 } { \time 2/4 R4*12 } as conveying the same semantics. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user