Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Frédéric Chiasson]

Might be an idea, but why should we keep two functions making the same function?

Does it cost that much on functionality to use two differents syntax in the same function?

Frédéric

2006/12/19, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:

Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> 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

Another option:

- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }

- replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3)  ; this can be implemented with
a standard music function



--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user