Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Jonathan Henkelman]

Erik Sandberg <mandolaerik <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the parser 
> machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a 
proper 
> music function, e.g. as
> \tuplet 2 3 {...}
> This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
> 
> (Hm, my suggestion is not really in line with this discussion; I can agree 
> that \tuplet 2 3 would be easier to confuse with "3:2" than \tuplet 2/3 is).
> 

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.

That being said, \tuplet 2 3 {...} is rather confusing.  I can live with 
either : or / but my $0.02 would prefer one _or_ the other - in my case ':'.  
I can see how people would want a choice though...  Sigh.  Once there, it is 
hard to take functionality away.  Still, is there a way to make this change so 
it fits within the current grammer, rather than expanding the grammer?

Incidentally what happens in Mats' example if the number of notes isn't a 
correct multiple.  I assume tuplet would handle this the same way as times 
currently does, but does this make sense in the \tuplet case?

Jonathan