Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Trevor Daniels]

David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM

> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0?  Should we be using it
> in code and documentation rather than s1*0?

Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
It is not intuitively obvious that an empty chord takes no
time and does not affect the current duration, rather than
being equivalent to an s, which of course takes the current
duration.  

Perhaps both should appear in the documentation, with a
word of explanation.  Users can then choose which they 
prefer.

Trevor