On 10/01/2024 10:35, mskala@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.
Well, to my eye, it looks like an empty chord, which makes some sense.
At least section 1.2.2 of the reference manual ought to be updated to
include <> in the discussion of invisible rests.
Can you share how you would want that section changed? Or I could take a stab at it, but it may not be what you want. Also, <> can be used for a lot of different things that aren't rests, so maybe that section of the Notation manual is not the best place for it.