Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 10:29 AM

> Leaving that question aside, we're talking about the preferred
> method of having something which does not tamper with the current
> duration but does take post-events.
>
> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> non-duration post-event.  James and I disagree; we think that a
> different tool (such as a new \null or \nullevent) would be easier
> to read.

You can't attach articulations, dynamics or markup to
such things.

Let's forget the unrealistic convoluted examples and look
at a real case where s1*0 is necessary and is used in the
docs (taken from
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-keyboards
 )

It's needed when a crescendo ends on the final note in a
music expression.  The three ways of doing this are:

\relative c' {
 e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
}
\relative c' {
 e2\p\< d\> <>\!
}
\relative c' {
%  e2\p\< d\> z\!
}

where the third one is commented out as it is currently
invalid.  The third form is undeniably clearer, once the
meaning of z is known, but to make it valid would require
a parser change; not something to be undertaken lightly,
especially after all David's work to simplify the parser.
I would not support this third option for that reason.
As the situations where z would be needed are
quite rare, the complication is unjustified, IMO.

Of the two remaining, I find s1*0 clearer than <> in this
example, so I am not in favour of a blanket change to <>
in the docs.  But I am in favour of documenting the
already-existing semantics of <>.

Trevor