Re: Document <> and improve other simultanous music documentation. (issue 6248080)

[dak]

On 2012/06/01 22:21:46, Keith wrote:
> The issue was that s1*0 can affect the default duration of the next
note, while
> <> does not, but the solution of <> was tempered by opinions that <>
is cryptic.

This implies that this patch is trying to solve the issue.  It doesn't.
It merely provides the information required to see what chords in
general are and how <> fits in, and to see what << >> in general is (and
in particular what it is not) and how chords fit in.  This information
was conspiculously absent for the most part.

This is groundwork.  It does not actually tackle issue 2522, merely
makes it easier to start.

> s1*0 is rarely used.  The uses I find, in documentation and
mutopiaproject, are
> to attach a post-fix notation to an object where it is inconvenient or
> impossible to postfix the notation.

> This patch fails to explain how <> solves the difficulty for with
people have
> used s1*0.  Instead, it demonstrates the considerable leeway to
transform clear
> input to cryptic input, without changing the resulting output.

I agree that the examples don't show a useful application: that would
actually already constitute part of issue 2522: not just telling how <>
works, but how it can be useful.

The intent of the examples is to show equivalences.  Of course, only one
of the equivalences is ever needed.  At this section of the manual, more
complex/abstract constructs that are _better_ solved using <> and/or
parallel music are not easy to come by without exceeding the complexity
already understood by the reader.

So I welcome any examples/passages which do the job better.  I agree
with you that the question "why?" is not answered.


http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/