Re: Non-numeric time signatures

[Dan Eble]

On Oct 25, 2014, at 17:59 , Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> I think the double c and double cut c symbols are very much non-standard, 
> unlike single cut c for 4/2, which I consider to be in use very widely. With 
> this difference in frequency of use I don’t find your suggestion convincing.

My suggestion was not based on frequency of use (because I am ignorant of that) 
but on my impression that it would be nicer to have a default that doesn’t use 
the same symbol for different time signatures.

> default: (currently called #'C – perhaps rename to #'symbolic? That would be 
> more descriptive)
> 4/4 -> c
> 2/2 -> cut c
> 4/2 -> (single) cut c

“Symbolic” is too generic.  It could be applied to more than one style, 
otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. :)

> How might an additional option for double c/cut c time signatures be called? 
> Perhaps #'romantic or #'double or #’varsymbol?

I’m not qualified to judge whether the double-c style is romantic.  If it is 
not desirable to add the double-c time signatures to the default style, my 
favorite name so far is #’CC.

Here is yet another suggestion for your alla breve pieces: What about adding a 
#'single-C style (analogous to #’single-digit) which uses c or cut-c based only 
on the numerator?  Any 4/x would be printed as a single c and any 2/x would be 
printed as a single cut c.  You would therefore use \time 2/1.  (I like this 
suggestion a lot.)

Regards,
—
Dan