Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-03-20 3:17 am, David Kastrup wrote:
> Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> writes:
> > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> > compatibility would only need to exist for a time.
>
> I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
> proper expression when writing a separate timing track.

Natural, I can see.  Proper... I would need more information backing 
that claim.  Certainly if there is a technical basis, I would be eager 
to review it.  If sound, then I could retract my proposal and answer the 
email subject with "no".

In my timing/global/structure variables, expressions like \partial 4 s4 
are common.  Certainly \partial 4 would be most succinct, but it creates 
no actual duration in sequential music.  Naturally, the spacer rest is 
used so later commands occur when I need them.  My proposal leads to 
\partial s4 as a reasonable construct that avoids redundancy.  (See 
below regarding NullVoice.)


> > A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
> > this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
> > still allowing existing code to compile.  When it is convenient, a
> > future release would only support music as the argument.
>
> 4. _is_ valid music.

Yes, and it works with the updated \partial function.  The only side 
effect is that it might produce a visible note (of unspecified pitch), 
because that is what 4. as music means.  If used in a NullVoice context, 
it should work the same as s4. which means we are back to the original 
syntax.  The key difference is that \partial 4. would now have musical 
length.


-- Aaron Hill