Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS (final)

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/08/12 02:23, David Kastrup wrote:
> It would have been 3+2/8 at any rate since throwing parens into the
> token syntax would have further messed up the ambiguities, and forms
> like 3/2+2/5 would not likely have worked.

Could it improve matters to have instead something like,

   3:2 + 2:5

... i.e. to use a different symbol from / to separate the upper and lower values 
of time signature?

Then if you have something like,

   3+2/3:4 + 3+2/3:8 + 3:10

... there should be little ambiguity for the parser.

I accept it's a major breaking syntax change (although the deprecation path and 
conversion rules ought to be pretty simple), but could this be a case where it's 
worth it?

Incidentally, what's the scope/likelihood of handling something like,

   3/4.     [... or in my suggested notation, 3:4. ]

i.e. three dotted quarter notes per bar, which is the sort of thing you see 
fairly regularly in contemporary music (usually in the case where the time 
signature is of the form number-over-note-symbol).