Re: [GLISS] differentiating pre/post/neutral commands

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:04:01PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Basically every construct that we would be tempted to use <> or s1*0 for
>> occasionally is one that is not really attached to a note, but rather to
>> a moment in time.
>
> I certainly agree that it would be good to be clear about "stuff"
> which is attached to a note vs. "stuff" which is attached to a
> moment in time.  (either "the moment between notes" or "some
> moment within the previous / next note)
>
>> One argument might be that
>> c( c)
>> might look ugly, but less ugly than
>> (c )c
>> looks.  Of course, neither is symmetric.
>
> IIRC, the old style in lilypond was:
>   (c c)

I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and
post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day
sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback.  It would make
(c (d) e)
visually confusing.  While neither the current
c( d)( e)
nor the standalone event version
(c )(d )e
will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in conveying
meaning rather than looking pleasing.

-- 
David Kastrup