Re: Isolated durations in music sequences now stand for unpitched notes (issue 22120043)

[dak]

https://codereview.appspot.com/22120043/diff/40001/scm/music-functions.scm
File scm/music-functions.scm (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/22120043/diff/40001/scm/music-functions.scm#newcode780
scm/music-functions.scm:780: ;;; that don't interpret them is harmless.
On 2013/11/09 18:46:30, benko.pal wrote:
> does that mean that

> <c e>2. 4.

> is turned into

> <c e>2. e4.

> ?

No.  It means that

f1 <c e>2. 4.

is turned into

f1 <c e>2. f4.

> while I actually like not copying articulation, not copying chords
make the
> new feature (which I'm enthusiastic about) a bit less useful, e.g.
writing tied
> chords as

> <c e>2. ~ 4.

> would really be neat, making it more similar to the shorthand when
duration is
> omitted.

You need to use q here.  Sorry, but it would not do to turn

<< \new Staff { <c e>4 }
   \new RhythmicStaff { 4 4 4 4 }


into

<< \new Staff { <c e>4 }
   \new RhythmicStaff { <c e>4 <c e>4 <c e>4 <c e>4 }


since then every note stem in RhythmicStaff would have two heads.  The
main feature is being able to write naked rhythms.  In the contexts
where they are of interest, it should be no problem if they inherit an
arbitrary pitch, but they can't magically turn into chords.

Yes, that makes the "shorthand" aspect less nice than the "pure
rhythm" aspect.  But the latter is something that LilyPond has some
need of, and where the former is really wanted, one could write an
explicit control sequence for doing the rewriting.

It would also be possible to _never_ repeat pitches automatically (so
that you always need some macro for doing that kind of rewrite), but I
see no particular advantage for that.

https://codereview.appspot.com/22120043/