Re: alternative notation for tuplets (idea)?

[Bernardo Barros]

not replace, but one could use both, why not?

2010/10/15 Jethro Van Thuyne <address@hidden>:
> Why the urge to change? When \times has been used for such a long time,
> replacing it with "tuplet" or advanced arithmetics would make things far
> more difficult. I don't see the problem with the current system.
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>
>> One think I don't like, since I use a lot of tuplets, is the
>> similarity between "time" and "times".
>> Why not \tuplet 9/8 instead of \times 8/9 ?
>>
>> 2010/10/15 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
>> > Hi,
>> > an idea about tuplets came to my head (and a quick seach suggested that it
>> > wasn't discussed before).
>> > In LilyPond we write durations in form of denominators, i.e. c4 = "c note
>> > that lasts 1/4 the duration of a whole note", d16 = "d note with a duration
>> > 16 times shorter than whole note" etc., but for the tuplets we need the
>> > \times notation. Of course it works, but maybe we can make it simpler?
>> > Why not use numbers other than powers of 2? For example,
>> > c1 d3 e3 c3 d1 would mean c1 \times 2/3 { d2 e2 c2 } d1
>> > c3 d6 e2 would mean \times 2/3 { c2 d4 } e2
>> > c20 c c c c c c c c c e2 d9 d d d d d d d d  would mean \times 4/5 { c16 c 
>> > c
>> > c c } \times 4/5 { c16 c c c c } e2 \times 8/9 { d8 d d d d d d d d }
>> > and so on.
>> > In my opinion it would be useful for simple tuplets - input would look less
>> > cumbersome and would be faster to type. Of course for complicated tuplets
>> > and some special uses old syntax should be used.
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > lilypond-user mailing list
>> > address@hidden
>> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>