Re: music definition change in 2.9.9 or thereabouts?

[Erik Sandberg]

On Friday 23 June 2006 20:59, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> 2006/6/20, Erik Sandberg <address@hidden>:
> > No. The underlying problem is that we now allow events that aren't
> > wrapped in event-chords. So the following:
> >
> > foo = c4
> >
> > could make foo contain a NoteEvent directly. (I think it currently wraps
> > the note in an EventChord, but I plan to change that). The problem is
> > that
>
> I'm not sure that this is an improvement; 

FWIW, one reason for the change is that it's a step toward making music events 
iterating themselves, without the help of event chords. I think that's a 
long-term goal.

> if you do this, how will you deal  
> with
>
>   c4\glissando
>
> ?

The attached patch solves this problem: a music class 'post-event is added, 
which contains events such as GlissandoEvent, that have no duration 
and that should be attached to notes. That way, there is a way to distinguish 
between music identifiers and post-event-identifiers.

I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but it fixes the bug. 

I guess this is an academic music representation issue: Do you think that 
there is a fundamental difference (non-syntactically) between events with 
postfix syntax, and other events?

-- 
Erik

es-060626.diff
Description: Text Data