I see now, but one would think that might cause more difficult programming necessitating the keeping tracking of various R values through out the piece as defined by a time signature as opposed to us setting the value, which probably would also slow down lilypond having to parse and hang on to that extra undeclared information. Of course maybe i am wrong on that. But I do believe making sure the user is forced to think out the value of R duration is probably more useful than any minimal convenience, especially as Joram points out that would make r and R functionality divergent.
Shane On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Joram Berger <joram.no...@gmx.de> wrote: > Even while I am a bit sceptical whether the syntax for R should differ > from r, I see your point. > > Rather than R14 for a 14 measure rest, I would suggest to keep the > syntax close to the one before: R*14 (This way I would almost be > convinced ;) ) > > Could the duration be optional this way, keeping the current behaviour > if given? I mean could this change request be implemented without > affecting the recommended way at present? Probably not, because of > ambiguities, and because the following notes would take the same duration. > > Cheers, > Joram > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
