Re: User comments on R shorthand

Op 20-03-13 15:54, James Harkins schreef: The proposal is: - Old: R2 == a full measure rest in 2/4 time - New: R2 ==*two* full measure rests in any time signature I don't like it, because the real duration is not visible anymore, because it depends on some hidden information that is only av

Re: User comments on R shorthand

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:54 PM, James Harkins wrote: > My opinion (as a somewhat-more-than-casual Lilypond user, and as a > contributor to another music software package [SuperCollider]): Any > change in syntax that will break prior usage should be considered > very, very carefully to be sure th

Re: User comments on R shorthand

[snip long discussion] hi people, I'd love to be able to write R*4 to get 4 full measure rests without having to think about time signature. This would be very convenient. Therefore i'm sorry to hear that such a feature is likely impossible to implement properly (if David says so, there's a good

Re: User comments on R shorthand

David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > Now look at the output of > music = { \time 4/4 a1 a1 a1 a1 } > \new Staff << \music \\ { f1 \time 12/4 f1 f1 f1 } >> > which is a perfectly valid though slightly capricious LilyPond file. That is how I join parts together with time changes, and I didn't thin

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi all, > >> If it is entered into the tracker, I strongly suggest adding a link to >> my mail with the LilyPond example for a startling bar count. It might >> keep people from wasting unnecessary time due to underestimating the >> problem. > > +1 > That example certai

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Hi all, > If it is entered into the tracker, I strongly suggest adding a link to > my mail with the LilyPond example for a startling bar count. It might > keep people from wasting unnecessary time due to underestimating the > problem. +1 That example certainly pointed out a significant hurdle to

Re: User comments on R shorthand

"Phil Holmes" writes: > [Snip possibly final comments.] > > I've read all the emails on this, and personally agree that R*5 for 5 > FMRs of whatever time sig would be a step forward. Whether this is > easy or difficult to implement is irrelevant to the way we handle > enhancement requests. > > K

Re: User comments on R shorthand

[Snip possibly final comments.] I've read all the emails on this, and personally agree that R*5 for 5 FMRs of whatever time sig would be a step forward. Whether this is easy or difficult to implement is irrelevant to the way we handle enhancement requests. Kieren - suggest you send an enhan

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> See page 3, at the bottom, for two, three, and >> four measure rests. (I'm obliged to cite and give >> credit for the scans.} How can these be implemented >> without R2, R3, and R4? > > Assuming that staff is in 4/4 time (there is no time signature > cur

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Am 20.03.2013 19:11, schrieb David Raleigh Arnold: > A way of indicating the number of > measures rested by a number in the score > should of course remain, but R2, R3, and > R4 should be implemented as shown on page 3. That is perfectly possible right now (and for a very long time): R1*2 R1*3 R

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Hi David, > See page 3, at the bottom, for two, three, and > four measure rests. (I'm obliged to cite and give > credit for the scans.} How can these be implemented > without R2, R3, and R4? Assuming that staff is in 4/4 time (there is no time signature currently), then R1*2, R1*3, and R1*4 sho

Re: User comments on R shorthand

On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 22:54 +0800, James Harkins wrote: > I apologize for weighing in on the R shorthand thread by sending a new > message. I read the digest and normally reply to messages by gmane. > However, for some unknown reason, "R shorthand" seems to be missing > e

Re: User comments on R shorthand

On 20 Mar 2013, at 17:03 , Nick Baskin wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: Hi James, All good points! > R2 (a full measure rest in 2/4 time) > R2*2 (two full measure rests in 2/4 time) > R*2 (two full measure rests in any meter) +1 Regards, Wim.

Re: R shorthand

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> I gave the answer previously, including the rationale. Since it was >> tactfully being ignored, it seemed to require more emphasis. >> Otherwise I would likely have been blamed for ignoring users' wishes >> in spite of them reaching perfect agreement. >

Re: R shorthand

Hi David, > I gave the answer previously, including the rationale. Since it was > tactfully being ignored, it seemed to require more emphasis. Otherwise > I would likely have been blamed for ignoring users' wishes in spite of > them reaching perfect agreement. So to be perfectly clear: You can

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Hi Nick, > I'm not sure this would work, actually. If I understand correctly, R > currently behaves like any other LilyPond music event when it comes to > duration, i.e. unless otherwise specified, it takes the value of the > preceding note/rest. So if you had something like > > \time 2/4 > R2

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Nick Baskin writes: > I'm not sure this would work, actually. If I understand correctly, R > currently behaves like any other LilyPond music event when it comes to > duration, i.e. unless otherwise specified, it takes the value of the > preceding note/rest. So if you had something like > > \time

Re: User comments on R shorthand

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi James, > > All good points! > > > R2 (a full measure rest in 2/4 time) > > R2*2 (two full measure rests in 2/4 time) > > R*2 (two full measure rests in any meter) > > Love it. > > Cheers, > Kieren. > >

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Hi James, All good points! > R2 (a full measure rest in 2/4 time) > R2*2 (two full measure rests in 2/4 time) > R*2 (two full measure rests in any meter) Love it. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.

Re: User comments on R shorthand

Am 20.03.2013 16:25, schrieb James Harkins: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: - Old: R2 == a full measure rest in 2/4 time - New: R2 == *two* full measure rests in any time signature Actually, I like this. This would also help in situations like tacet al

Re: User comments on R shorthand

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> - Old: R2 == a full measure rest in 2/4 time >> - New: R2 == *two* full measure rests in any time signature > > Actually, I like this. This would also help in situations like > > tacet al >|---

Re: User comments on R shorthand

> - Old: R2 == a full measure rest in 2/4 time > - New: R2 == *two* full measure rests in any time signature Actually, I like this. This would also help in situations like tacet al |--| > That breaks backward compatibility. convert-ly is your fr

User comments on R shorthand

I apologize for weighing in on the R shorthand thread by sending a new message. I read the digest and normally reply to messages by gmane. However, for some unknown reason, "R shorthand" seems to be missing entirely from gmane. It exists in the archives on lists.gnu.org. My opinion (as

Re: R shorthand

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> Whatever you mean by "improve". > > > >> What is supposed to be the result of >> { \time 3/4 << { R15 \time 2/4 R3 } \\ { R3 \time 4/4 R10 } >> } > > One context consisting of a sequence of multi-measure re

Re: R shorthand

Hi David, > Whatever you mean by "improve". > What is supposed to be the result of > { \time 3/4 << { R15 \time 2/4 R3 } \\ { R3 \time 4/4 R10 } >> } One context consisting of a sequence of multi-measure rests totalling 51 quarter notes, simulta

Re: R shorthand

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Evan, > >> FWIW the multimeasure rest syntax has been a bit of an annoyance >> with what I've been working on recently (Mars). > > First of all, could you please email me the note code for "Mars" when > you're done? I'm working on a wicked-cool Lilypond demo, and "Ma

Re: R shorthand

Hi Evan, > FWIW the multimeasure rest syntax has been a bit of an annoyance with what > I've been working on recently (Mars). First of all, could you please email me the note code for "Mars" when you're done? I'm working on a wicked-cool Lilypond demo, and "Mars" was exactly the piece I was co

Re: Re: R shorthand

On 03/19/2013 04:21 PM, Shane Brandes wrote: 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 do

Re: R shorthand

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:38:10 -0400 Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Shane, > > > 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, whi

Re: R shorthand

Hi Shane, > 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 t

Re: R shorthand

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

Re: R shorthand

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

Re: R shorthand

Hi Shane, > What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14? I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward length"… I'm suggesting that R (with no duration given) should give you a one-measure multi-measure rest, regardless of what the measure duration is. And that Rx (where x is an int

Re: R shorthand

Kieren, What happens when we need an awkward length R like R1*12/8*14? Shane On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hello all, > > While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple of > R-elated observations/thoughts: > > 1. We shouldn't be encouragin

R shorthand

Hello all, While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple of R-elated observations/thoughts: 1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right? So the duration ultimately makes no sense anyway. 2. The most elegant solution would be to use R (i.e., wit