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

[dak]

On 2013/11/12 15:35:42, benko.pal wrote:
> On 2013/11/12 10:23:56, dak wrote:
> > a) we don't commit ourselves either way: it is undefined what a pure
duration
> > after an intervening chord will do.
> >
> > b) just single pitches, no chords: that's what this patch proposes.
> >
> > c) also chords: this patch needs more work, supporting code must be
written,
> > Pitch_squash_engraver has to be changed etc etc.
> >
> > The problem is that with both options b) and c), we'll soonish have
music
> > depending on this behavior.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards a): tell people not to rely on particular
behavior after a
> > chord for now.

> how does a) differ from b) patch-wise?

The Documentation is more or less in-between.  It's not helpful for
figuring out the difference.  If people experiment and find out the
current behavior and start relying on it, we can later tell them "your
own fault, where in the documentation did it promise to work?"

That's sort of subfabulous.  I have thought a bit more about
RhythmicStaff, and I am less convinced than previously that all problems
caused by chords creeping in unintentionally would be salvageable: the
Pitch_squash_engraver can't really fix the Midi.  It would need a
companion performer.  And so on.

Of course, it makes sense to say then in the context of RhythmicStaff:
_do_ specify a starting pitch, or probably preferably, a drum type.

So this patch leaves open questions, and people might give themselves
answers consistent with the current behavior.  Overriding those answers
later with a convert-ly rule seems unfeasible: this is really a bit too
invasive and complex to change using convert-ly.

The current behavior is reasonably predictable and reasonably
straightforward.  With regard to chords, it's not entirely lovable.  I'm
not sure making it more complex is a good idea, though.

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