On 10/01/2024 10:35, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote:
That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a programmer
for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If s0 is more
intuitive then that should be considered for future inclusion.
It's intuitive to me that s0 means a spacer rest of infinite duration,
because it's one whole note divided by zero. And it opens the door
to using 0 as a duration denominator for other things than "s", as in "c0"
and "<c e g>0", let alone constructions like "s0." which would seem to be
a spacer of one and one half times infinite duration. I don't think it's
a good idea to open those doors. There doesn't seem to be any way to
allow zero as the duration denominator except as a unique exception; it
cannot be done in a way that's consistent with other syntax.
I agree that 0 as a denominator would seem to indicate an infinite
duration, and allow the rest of your argument. However <> still seems
unintuitive.
At least section 1.2.2 of the reference manual ought to be updated to
include <> in the discussion of invisible rests.
--
Political correctness: a kind of McCarthyite movement in reverse which,
in the name of tolerance proscribes all reference to gender, ethnicity,
color of skin, sexual preference, social provenance and even age. It has
no leaders, as far as I am aware, only terrified disciples. - John le Carre
