[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)
From: |
Valentin Villenave |
Subject: |
Re: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:25:40 +0100 |
2007/1/14, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
Valentin Villenave wrote:
>
> "Tuplets are made with the minimalistic \t keyword".
Comments:
- If Erik's proposal to handle fractions such as 2/3 as a new
argument type is implemented, then it will be trivial to
define your own music function called \t within LilyPond.
I definitely do not think that it's a good idea to use such
heavily abbreviated command names by default in LilyPond
but on the other hand it's an excellent solution for you and
many others to add such a customized music function and
this specific example should be included as a standard example
in the documentation.
/Mats
Thank you Mats;
it would be indeed heavily abbreviated. But what about the second part
of my suggestion:
>
> "If you do not specify a tuplet argument, the argument last entered is
> used for the next tuplet. The argument of the first tuplet in input
> defaults to 2/3."
>
When you use the \times command, most of the time it's to use 2/3, or
to use some argument you've already been using. Is we keep "\times", I
agree to say this command can't go without any argument. But if it
becomes "\tuplet", why couldn't we implemement some default rule ?
Where
\times {f8 g a} ====>doesn't mean anything,
\tuplet {f8 g a} ====>makes sense, doesn't it ?
Best regards,
Valentin Villenave.