[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
From: |
Matevž Jekovec |
Subject: |
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:03:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061115) |
Graham Percival pravi:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
>
>>> I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion
>>> started with my discussion of trying to trim down the grammer
>>> complexity. Adding syntax is not really in that direction.
>>
>> Another option:
>> - add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
>>
>> - replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3) ; this can be implemented
>> with a standard music function
>
> Oh God no. It took me a year to get used to #'(2 . 3) -- I kept on
> trying '#( and #( and #'(2.3)... every time I gave up after ten
> minutes and found an example from the documentation to copy.
>
> I'm with Werner here -- I don't see grammar complexity as a problem.
> I enthusiastically support
> \tuplet 3:2 { }
> \tuplet 2/3 { }
>
> meaning the same thing. I'm not convinced that
> \triplet { }
> is worth having, though. The advantage of \triplet{} over \tuplet
> X:/Y isn't clear to me.
I vote for \tuplet 2/3 {}. It has a common syntax to \time 4/4 for
example. And it represents the factor which the group of notes is
multiplied by, so I don't think there's a dilema about which number is
first, 2 or 3.
I like \tuplet 3:2 as well, but the syntax is already too spread in Lily
IMO. We use one naming for \time, other for \key, another now for
\tuplet... I don't think it's generally a good idea. Users will only
become confused about the colons.
As for the triplet, it is a most-widely used tuplet (I'd say 90% of all
the tuplets out there), so I vote for the triplet as well.
\triplet = \tuplet 2/3
Regards.
- Matevž
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question,
Matevž Jekovec <=