Re: Substitute for s1*0

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> 
>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>> 
>> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0?  Should we be using it
>> >in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>> 
>> Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
>
> +1
>
> What about defining a
>   null
> or
>   n
> "note name"?  Then we could write
>   c4 n\footnote

What's the duration of
<c n>
?

What is the duration of
n4
?

Where is the point in a note name that does not take to the current
duration?  How is that making things simpler?

-- 
David Kastrup