Hilary Snaden <h...@newearth.demon.co.uk> writes: > On 27/04/13 14:41, David Kastrup wrote: >> Hilary Snaden<h...@newearth.demon.co.uk> 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.
Sure. >> 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. convert-ly will make "taking a look" at it likely easier than you want to. But as the name of the function is quite different from \times and its meaning straightforward, I doubt you'll get irritated enough to implement a scheme for bypassing convert-ly 15880 times (the easiest way would likely be tampering with convertrules.py before doing an upgrade of all your scores). -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
