On 11/17/16 7:21 PM, "mclaren" <metachroma...@gmail.com> wrote: >This kind of trolling by Kieren (and others) is not useful. Yes, you can >bend and twist Lilypond into printing out tuplet numbers that bear no >relation to the actual tuplets generated by Lilypond...but that's not what >was asked for. Any reasonable person understands that the point of this >entire example is actually to get Lilypond to generate those tuplets so >that >Lilypond can produce the MIDI for a Nancarrow-typle 1% acceleration, >meaning >nested tuplets in the ratio 100:99, and then Lilypond can print out the >actual score and not a fake score done by inserting numbers on the page >that >are never actually used in the music.
I agree with part of what you say here, but not all of it. The part I agree with is that Kieren's code (using 10:9 tuplets but printing 100:99 tuplets) is a hack in that the printed output does not match the semantics of the musical input. This is clearly less than ideal. The part I disagree with is the implication that the problem is that then LilyPond won't create the right MIDI. LilyPond is aimed at creating printed output, not MIDI output. MIDI output is a side benefit, not the primary reason for being. So while it would be better to be able to actually use 100:99 nested tuplets (and I hope that you can figure out how to do it), for the primary purpose of LilyPond (which is producing printed scores), it would be quite straightforward to make a music function that would fake the tuplets. As I said, it's not optimal. But it's considerably better than using photoshop or inkscape to create the score. And I'm sure that we really would welcome a patch that solved the problem, as long as it didn't hugely slow down processing of more traditional (e.g. 19th century) music. Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
