Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[stk]

> . . . \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}}
> would just be a shorthand for
> \tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}

That would add a big semantic burden to the meaning of "{" and "}".
Currently {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} means the same thing as
{c d e f g a b c d}.  I would hate to have to write the parser that would
figure out (reliably) what
   {{c d e} {f g} {a b c}}
or
   {{c d e} {{f g} a} b c}
or
   {{c8 d e} {f4 g a}}
mean (as arguments to \tupletSequence).  And if
   \seq = {{a8 b c} {d8 e f}}
then, since LP macros are *not* string macros, what will the parser
do with the argument
   { {g8 f e} \seq {b8 a g} }
???  I think the parsing problem would be wildly intractable.

-- Tom

*******************************************************************

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Erik Sandberg wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 January 2007 22:29, address@hidden wrote:
> > > ... in irregular, tuplet-intensive music it may be sensible to create a
> > > music function for sequences of tuplets. In addition, it's IMHO a more
> > > lilypondesque solution than tupletSpannerDuration, once we support
> > > fractions as music function arguments.
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, this would involve specifying, one way or
> > another, the duration of each actual tuplet.  Explicit specification of a
> > duration (other than by an external tupletSpannerDuration declaration) has
> > been suggested by another user, and IMO it would be a good idea, although
> > I gather that Han-Wen is not in favour of the idea.
>
> No, \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} would just be a shorthand
> for \tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}
>
> It is problematic to use durations to decide the scaling of a tuplet; this has
> been discussed previously in this thread. E.g., if you scale 3 8th notes to
> duration 4, then it is unclear whether it corresponds to factor 2/3 or 4/6.
>
> > But I have a question about how one would specify a duration.  Specifying
> > durations in the way we usually think about them allows actual durations
> > that look like this:
> > 1    ==> 1
> > 2... ==> 15/16
> > 2..  ==> 7/8
> > 2.   ==> 3/4
> > 4... ==> 15/32
> > 4..  ==> 7/16
> > 4.   ==> 3/8
> > 4    ==> 1/4
> > (etc.)
> > so that only durations of the form
> >    2^(p-1) / 2^q  (where p < q)
> > can be specified this way.  But given the extravagancies of contemporary
> > music, wouldn't it be possible, for example, to have a tuplet where 4
> > eighth notes would be played over a time interval of 5 eighths --
> >       \times 5/4  {c8 d e f}
> > Or does such a thing never happen?  If it does, then the tuplet's
> > duration, equal to 5/8 here, cannot be expressed simply by a dotted-note
> > notation such as in the preceding list.
>
> you could always write 1*5/8, which is a valid duration.
>
> --
> Erik