Re: Additive time signatures

[Joseph Wakeling]

Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2008, at 17:32, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> 
>> I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a
>> generally-set preference, along the lines of "\set Staff.timeSignature
>> #'style = note" (that's pseudo code, obviously:-), and also how complex
>> the resulting note could be: for example, imagine a time signature along
>> the lines of (again, in pseudo-notation),
>>
>> \time 3/(4.~ 4)
>>
>> (Basically this is a rather complicated way of writing a 15/8 time
>> signature subdivided into 3 beats of 5 eighth notes.)
> 
> I don't understand this notation; please explain your idea.

The idea for what would _appear_ is a 3 over a dotted quarter note tied
to a quarter note (hence the notation, which as I said, is pseudo-code).
 That is, a 3 over a note lasting 5 eighths.

It's not something particularly urgent for me to be able to do, but
seems like a good example of a weird-but-logical use of the
number-over-note time signature notation.

>> I don't see any reason _in principle_ why it should be impossible to
>> deal with such a time signature, as after all Lilypond is already
>> perfectly capable of dealing with weird-but-logical time signatures like
>> 7/10.
> 
> We discussed this in the bug list - a typo in Snippets. YOu can see
> there how it is possible to something in that way.
> 
> The problem is if one would want to fine tune it. For example, the
> Bulgarian kopanitsa 11/16 may be described as 4+3+4 where 4 = 2+2. So
> one may want to typeset the 4 as one group or one group where the
> secondary beams are grouped as 2+2. Then it is difficult to get the
> stems in say a 1+1+2 pattern to come out right.

Have you got a link to this discussion?  It sounds interesting.  I'd
like to understand more of what has been discussed before commenting on
the problem you raise.