Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Nicolas Sceaux]

Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :

> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh no }
> 
> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> <>\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh yes }

I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.

Now that this is settled, this leaves the question of using <> (which
already exists and works) or another new construct, eg. n or z or \null,
as a replacement for the broken s1*0 idiom.  Please let me quote (or
paraphrase) Montesquieu:

  It is sometimes necessary to change certain laws, but the case is rare,
  and should be undertaken with trembling hands.

This perfectly applies to parser changes in general, and to this case
in particular: n or z or \null is not at all a necessary change.
<> already exists, works on any LilyPond version, and has understandable
semantics once explicited in the doc.  Is there still a debate at this
point?

I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and neat,
faced such opposition.  I, for one, will be using the new <> idiom.

Nicolas