Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?

[Valentin Petzel]

I do not really like the idea that much to be honest. Of course it would be 
cool if we just have to specify the music and no duration, but in the end 
\partial is not really a command about the music, but about the measure 
structure. Binding it to some music would be a bit like having \time take some 
music, even though it does not need it.

This means that filling music into a structure becomes much weirder, requiring 
the use of artificial << ... >> statements to parallelize things. E.g. compare 
these two statements:

{
  \time 6/8 \partial 4.
  \repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
}

\new Staff {
  \time 6/8
  <<
    \partial s4.
    \repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
  >>
}

Clearly the second way is absolutely not beautiful, readable or intuitive. 
Additionally \partial will not start a new measure, which leads to potentially 
confusing behaviour.

One the other hand the benefit of this functionality is so minimal that I do 
not think it is worth it. Instead I’d say doing something as Werner proposed 
and have a new function with a self-explanatory name like \upbeat music for 
this would surely be preferable.

Also from a standpoint of efficiency: This would force us to put each partial 
measure into sequential music, which means  writings lots of braces, and at 
least I personally find writing braces less efficient than writing numbers.

Cheers,
Valentin


Am Sonntag, 20. März 2022, 05:35:46 CET schrieb Aaron Hill:
> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> >>>> power
> >>>> of regular expressions.  As such, \partial might need to support
> >>>> both
> >>>> duration and music arguments.  Initially I thought this might not be
> >>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but
> >>>> the
> > 
> >>>> following does seem to work:
> > ...
> > 
> > I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> > different.
> > 
> > \score {
> > 
> >   \fixed c' {
> >   
> >     \partial 4. 4.
> >   
> >   }
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > \score {
> > 
> >   \fixed c' {
> >   
> >     \partial c4. c4.
> >   
> >   }
> > 
> > }
> 
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.  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.
> 
> 
> -- Aaron Hill

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.