Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Werner LEMBERG]

> On the contrary, I think making mathematical sense serves a very
> practical purpose: it is more consistent with the non-tuplet method
> of scaling duration and it is (at least for me) easier to remember.

Mhmm.

> In LilyPond, if I want to print a half note but I only want it to
> use the duration of a quarter note, I use c2*1/2.  [...]

Well, this is not the same as having a tuplet...  And I fully agree
that this is the right notation here.

> I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
> the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]

If at all, then

  \tuplet 3:2 {...}

which should be the same as

  \tuplet 3 {...}

And of course it would be nice to make this particular case identical
to

  \triplet {...}

> but I thought that this thread was about _reducing_ the number of
> redundant constructs.

Well, I don't consider this a real redundancy.  Compare this to, say,
the unit `Hertz' (Hz) which is `redundant' because it's just `per
second' (s ^ -1).  In spite of this, nobody would use Gs^-1 instead of
GHz.

A tuplet notation is really not comparable to making a note longer or
shorter.

> I think that having two ways to do tuplets (that are exactly the
> same except for taking the reciprocal of the fraction) is a recipe
> for confusion.

I disagree.  I regularly confuse \times with \time -- it's really a
bad idea IMHO to have two such important commands with almost
identical names.

My personal favour would be the introduction of `\tuplet' as described
above.

> By the way, if you really want to use 3/2 instead of 2/3, I'm sure it's
> possible to whip up a scheme function.


    Werner