Re: Is "note value" unambiguous?

On 2025-01-12 06:15, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Personally, I would consider it a bad idea to change "duration" here.
> It is used pervasively in LilyPond and is "good enough".

I hope to avoid making this another multi-dozen-response thread where 
people with diverse concerns pull it off topic in multiple directions. 
I'd like to focus on understanding "note value" rather than changing 
LilyPond.

The use of unqualified "note value" varies in what I have read and it's 
hard for me to tell which sites have experts behind them and which are 
dressed-up LLM regurgitation.  (I can tell which sites have simply 
copied Wikipedia.  Have you no shame!?)

I have seen "note value" seemingly distinguished from duration, either 
including or excluding dots, but excluding tuple scaling.  Since 
starting this thread, I have also found it defined as what sounds like 
nothing more than a synonym of duration.

My tentative conclusion is that I shouldn't use "note value" without 
first explaining what I mean by it.
-- 
Dan