Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> writes: > Oh. Stupid. Working too hard! I neglected to realise the grace note time > value sets the value for the next note where it was not specified, as I > added in the grace afterwards. > > Many apologies for some particularly stupid noise. How I wish we could > delete posts sometimes.
There are a few conventions coined to rein in consequences of this convenience. One is to start each line with an explicit duration (meaning that you can interchange lines without changing their rhythm). Another is to prefer using <> over s1*0 for comparable effect (post events after rather than with the last note) since s1*0 leaves a default note duration that can have decidedly ugly effects and the typical use case of s1*0 is being the last element of some construct. I don't even remember what happens when entering and leaving tuplet sequences with regard to the carried-over note duration. It's best practice to be explicit with the respective first notes anyway. In the end, it's a reasonable price to pay for the convenience and a few conventions keep the effects reined in. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
