Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Frédéric Chiasson]

When I started this topic, the point was to suggest a more intuitive syntax, which is closer to the musicians' language and the output on the score. That is why I proposed \tuplet (closer to musicians's language) and "3:2" (closer to the output of the score). In my opinion, I though this function was working very well the way it was.

For the syntax topic, I would also suggest to standardize the tweak entries. At this moment, we can have for example :

\override Voice.Textscript #'padding = #3 (a number)
\override Voice.Stem #'stencil = #ly:stem::print (a function)
#(set-global-staff-size 13)
\set fontSize = #2

This diversity of syntax is hard to understand and very hard to remember for a non-programmer. Maybe we could replace them by "\" functions??

By the way, happy new year to everyone!

Frédéric

2007/1/5, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:

address@hidden escreveu:

>> I think changing \times to \tuplet is a great idea for the reason that
>> started the thread: \times is too close to \time.
>
> That I really don't get.  LilyPond is written in *English*.  There is a

the other, perhaps more valid reason, is that \tuplet more closely matches
the purpose than \times.


--

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com