Re: Problem with \partial

[Graham Percival]

Erik Sandberg wrote:
> On Friday 07 July 2006 16:34, Graham Percival wrote:
> > \noTimeSignature
> > c4 c c c | d d d d \partial 4 d | c c c c
>
> That's still a different concept than using \partial in the beginning of a 
> piece. IMHO, using \partial mid-piece is bad practise, because it's difficult 
> to read,

Hmm, ok.

> IMHO, I think the best practise for creating a single bar with length, is to 
> use
> \set Timing.barLength = #(make-moment ...)
> at the beginning of the bar, plus a corresponding \unset after the bar. The 
> set/unset is of course cumbersome, which is why some people currently prefer 
> the \partial hack to seemingly achieve the same thing. This is in turn is why 
> I suggest that we add a new command. (when thinking about it, I like best the 
> \makeBar {d4 d d d d} syntax)

I'm convinced as far as proper notation goes.  But I'd still like to 
have a "add time" command to avoid some bugs.  I agree that it's a bad 
reason, but unless there's a better way to do it, some notation won't work.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need workarounds like this, but it's 
useful to have a "fudge factor" \partial.  Perhaps we could rename it, 
and hide it somewhere in the manual under "advanced tweaks"?  :)

Here's the example (and the only time I use \partial inside a piece)


\layout{ ragged-right = ##t }
\relative c'' { << \new Staff {
%\cadenzaOn
  g1
  \key g \major \time 2/2
%\partial 64 s64
  \acciaccatura{ c16[ b a] }
%\cadenzaOff
  g1
} \new Staff {
  c,1
  \key g \major \time 2/2
%s64
  c1
}
>>
}