Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Graham Percival]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:

> > 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.
>
> Another option: 
>
> - add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
>
> - replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3)  ; this can be implemented with 
> a standard music function

Oh God no.  It took me a year to get used to #'(2 . 3) -- I kept on 
trying '#( and #( and #'(2.3)... every time I gave up after ten minutes 
and found an example from the documentation to copy.

I'm with Werner here -- I don't see grammar complexity as a problem.  I 
enthusiastically support
\tuplet 3:2 { }
\tuplet 2/3 { }

meaning the same thing.  I'm not convinced that
\triplet { }
is worth having, though.  The advantage of \triplet{} over \tuplet X:/Y 
isn't clear to me.

As long as we only introduce one of them (probably 3:2) in the tutorial, 
I don't see it being a problem for new users.

Cheers,
- Graham