Re: R shorthand

[Marc Hohl]

Am 19.03.2013 20:41, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > While answering Helge's post about multi-measure rests, I had a couple
> > of R-elated observations/thoughts:
> >
> > 1. We shouldn't be encouraging code like R4*3 in a 4/4 measure, right?
> > So the duration ultimately makes no sense anyway.
> > 2. The most elegant solution would be to use R (i.e., with no
> > duration) to represent a multimeasure rest, and it would "adapt" in
> > duration to whatever time signature was in force at that moment.
> > 3. Then R14 (e.g.) would represent 14 *measures*, not beats/counts —
> > again, simpler, more elegant, and certainly more intuitive than the
> > current situation.

I am not sure about this. Yes, we are talking about full measure rests
any way, but R14 looks wrong to me.

If the duration could be omitted for R as you described, then I'd vote
for R being *one* measure and for R * 14 to get the desired 14 measures.
> > Would it be difficult to implement such a scheme (play-on-words
> > intended)?
>
> One idea is that this makes it easy to switch between r and R.  Also, R
> is something that editors treat like note names.
>
> We could promote using R1*3/4*14 in the documentation (for 5 measures of

14 measures?

> 3/4).  That's reasonably brainless, but indeed more verbose than
> desirable.
>
> Or we could offer \tacet 14 without any relation to durations.

That sounds like a good thing to have. If this works with
\compressFullBarRests then it will be a nice feature.
>