Re: music definition change in 2.9.9 or thereabouts?

[Erik Sandberg]

On 6/26/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> Erik Sandberg schreef:
> > 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?
>
>
> No, and that's why I oppose to adding 'post-event as a music class.

One easy solution for now would be to let identifier_init wrap events
in chords when needed. In a future solution, I think it would be
sensible to represent all post-events directly as stream events; that
would clean up cases such as NoteEvent, where one [stream]event can
contain a list of [post]events.

BTW: I think there's a small problem with the current identifier
syntax: I think the post-event syntax c4\p (which really is a
shorthand for c4-\p) is a bit confusing: Assuming that foo contains an
event, the expression { c4 \foo d4 } either makes foo happen together
with the c or d, depending on whether foo's event is wrapped in an
EventChord. Wouldn't it be less confusing if the c4-\p syntax was
forced for post-events?

Erik