Re: the question of triplets

[Hilary Snaden]

On 27/04/13 14:41, David Kastrup wrote:
> Hilary Snaden<address@hidden>  writes:
> \tuplet has a nicer way to deal with tupletSpannerDuration, by the way.
>
> So you can continue using it if you want to, but in a few years,
> newcomers might no longer recognize what you are doing even though
> LilyPond most likely will.
>
> > \tuplet y/x is more logical, and would have been a better way of doing
> > it from the outset, but it's really not that difficult mentally to
> > associate \times x/y with playing y notes in the time of x.
>
> It usually takes frequent use to arrive at that mental state, and there
> are enough real problems with writing music that we don't need to create
> artificial hurdles just to keep things interesting.

There are 1224 \times in my own compositions, and 14656 in my engravings 
of other composers' work. I've no idea how many of those were copied and 
pasted, but nevertheless that probably counts as frequent use.

> That's why in this case we agreed on "disappearing" the "old" way of
> writing tuplets from the LilyPond code base.  Sure, it will take a few
> years to go down the pipes.

I can probably cope with that timescale. I'll certainly take a look at 
\tuplet when 2.18 materialises.