[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion) |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 23:56:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
> Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Suppose someone™ made the effort
>>> and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would
>>> such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest
>>> and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where
>>> appropriate?
>> Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other.
>
> Now that’s what I wanted to discuss – sorry for insisting. r and R are
> /engraved/ differently, but – thinking outside the box – as far as I
> can see, there is no semantic difference.
If that's what you wanted to discuss, then how about actually discussing
it rather than making apodictic statements? I gave an example. I have
a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of
{ \time 2/4 r4*12 }
{ \time 2/4 R4*12 }
as conveying the same semantics.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), (continued)
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/01
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Graham King, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion),
David Kastrup <=
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Noeck, 2017/04/02
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Kieren MacMillan, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), David Kastrup, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Simon Albrecht, 2017/04/03
- Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion), Wols Lists, 2017/04/03