Re: alternative notation for tuplets (idea)?

[Valentin Villenave]

2010/10/20 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
> I've finally read all this and i'm still not convinced, because these
> dicsussions don't mention my idea at all (i suggest that numbers 3, 5, 6, 7,
> 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 etc. should become valid durations, and work
> like the familiar 1, 2 , 4, 8, 16 etc.). Nevertheless, i think i should put
> this on hold (unless someone wants to discuss privately) - maybe my english
> is not good enough to explain this...

Your idea is interesting, but *very* un-LilyPond-ish in its logic. I
couldn't explain it better (and certainly not in English!), but maybe
in a few years you'll understand what I mean ;-)
You may think of LilyPond as a language (that is now almost 15-years
old, which is a long, long time). Of course, like every language, it
can evolve, but it evolves very slowly and everything that changes,
does so for a reason. A change like what you propose is quite a big
and sudden modification, which not everybody may feel comfortable
with.

Bernardo: for four years, I have never ever written \times 2/3 { },
since I read the following mail from Mats, and the snippet he posted:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-01/msg00503.html
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=328

What I use in my code is:
\t { c d e } instead of \times 2/3 { c d e }
\tt { c d e f g } instead of \times 4/5 { c d e f g }
\ttt { c d e f g a } instead of \times 4/6
\ttt { } instead of \times 4/7,
etc.

It is *very* quick to type. I mean, *very* *very* quick.

That's when I finally understood how powerful LilyPond really is, and
how foolish I was to ask the developers to adapt Lily to my needs,
where *I* could adapt it myself just the way I wanted.

GLHF
Valentin