Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:24 PM

> I'm still not happy with an empty chord, especially in the
> Learning Manual.  I think it leads to the "perlization" of
> lilypond, where we end up looking like a ridiculous language like
> Haskell.

My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
current duration happens to be.  That's all.   (It could be
thought to insert a blank chord with a length equal to the 
current duration).  Then should it be used elsewhere at least
the explanation has been given.

> I'm ok with using <> as a quick hack for things like convert-ly
> rules, so I'm not arguing against David's patch.  But I wouldn't
> want to see <> becoming part of our basic vocabulary.  I still
> think that a "n" or "z" or "\null" would be more clear if there's
> a solid reason to have such a "musical" "event" in a
> non-computer-modified score.

No.  I don't see the point of introducing yet another notation to
do the same thing.  <> and s1*0 already exist and work.  Having
a third method would make LP even more obtuse, IMO -
unless you're advocating nobbling s1*0 and/or <> so they
don't work as they do.

Trevor