On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I'm not sure about the validity of your conclusion. Writing tuplets
is such a central element of inputting music that a special treatment
is probably justified, even at the cost of hardwiring.
We are talking about writing
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 10/10/2012 12:08 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
[]
All of this (and what follows) seems rather aggressive and blunt on a second
reading -- wasn't meant to be. Apologies. :-\
No problem, i
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I'm not sure about the validity of your conclusion. Writing tuplets
is such a central element of inputting music that a special treatment
is probably justified, even at the cost
We are talking about writing \tuplet 3:2 { ... } instead of \tuplet
3/2 { ... } here. Whether tuplets are central or not, this
single-character difference is purely cosmetic, and it is
well-known that obsessive-compulsive cosmetic surgery is not
exactly guaranteed to maximize the obtained
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
We are talking about writing \tuplet 3:2 { ... } instead of \tuplet
3/2 { ... } here. Whether tuplets are central or not, this
single-character difference is purely cosmetic, and it is
well-known that obsessive-compulsive cosmetic surgery is not
exactly
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
We are talking about writing \tuplet 3:2 { ... } instead of \tuplet
3/2 { ... } here. Whether tuplets are central or not, this
single-character difference is purely cosmetic, and it is
well-known that obsessive-compulsive cosmetic surgery is not
exactly
It is a matter of fact that triplets are either marked with a
single digit, or with a ratio like `4:3'. I think it is not too
far stretched to expect that lilypond should follow such
conventions even in the input.
I disagree. [...]
Good arguments, David!
Now where is the point in
I'd rather recommend using something separate like
\tupletStyle 3:2, \tupletStyle 3, \tupletStyle .
This is an excellent idea.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
It is a matter of fact that triplets are either marked with a
single digit, or with a ratio like `4:3'. I think it is not too
far stretched to expect that lilypond should follow such
conventions even in the input.
I disagree. [...]
Good arguments,
2012/10/10 Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org:
I'd rather recommend using something separate like
\tupletStyle 3:2, \tupletStyle 3, \tupletStyle .
This is an excellent idea.
And it is cheap, it admits a single string argument.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org ,
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 10/10/2012 09:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
However, forcing a certain form of input representation for a certain
form of output is a nuisance for programmatically generated music.
I'd rather recommend using something separate
Martin Tarenskeen m.tarenskeen at zonnet.nl writes:
I am not in favour of allowing different commands \times 2/3 and \tuplet3/2 to
do the same job. My voice would go to: just keep \times x/y the wayit is. I
can't see what makes 3/2 easier than 2/3. And having the choiceof two commands
doing
2012/10/9 Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net:
Currently, everyone who thinks of a triplet as a 3:2 ratio, 3 notes in the
usual time for 2, suffers similar confusion when trying to remember \times
2/3. Triplets are usually written with a simple 3, but 4-note-tuplets are
often designated 4:3 for
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
duplet =
#(define-music-function (parser location d music)
((ly:duration? #f) ly:music? )
(if d
#{\tuplet 2 $d $music #}
#{\tuplet 2 $music #} ))
Just a note here: this can be done quite more concisely by writing
duplet =
Martin Tarenskeen m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl writes:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if
Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:12 AM
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
In this case, i
think that
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net:
Currently, everyone who thinks of a triplet as a 3:2 ratio, 3 notes in the
usual time for 2, suffers similar confusion when trying to remember \times
2/3. Triplets are usually written with a simple 3, but
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Keith OHara wrote:
Martin Tarenskeen m.tarenskeen at zonnet.nl writes:
I am not in favour of allowing different commands \times 2/3 and \tuplet3/2
to do the same job. My voice would go to: just keep \times x/y the wayit
is. I can't see what makes 3/2 easier than 2/3.
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net:
Currently, everyone who thinks of a triplet as a 3:2 ratio, 3 notes in the
usual time for 2, suffers similar confusion when trying to remember \times
2/3. Triplets
2012/10/9 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
When I learned how to read music, triplets were taught to me as
always shrinking groups and you see a 3 but there is an implicit
2 so we have 3:2. Only the numerator is printed by convention.
Thus, if you write
\times 2/3 { b16 b b b b b }
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net:
Currently, everyone who thinks of a triplet as a 3:2 ratio, 3 notes in the
usual time for 2, suffers similar confusion
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
The concept used for printing/grouping tuplets is different than the
concept used for scaling the time. That's what makes \times such a
confusing interface.
The pure scaling alone is available as \scaleDurations. I have no beef
with it using 2/3 as
2012/10/9 Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com:
2012/10/9 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
When I learned how to read music, triplets were taught to me as
always shrinking groups and you see a 3 but there is an implicit
2 so we have 3:2. Only the numerator is printed by convention.
Thus, if
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
The concept used for printing/grouping tuplets is different than the
concept used for scaling the time. That's what makes \times such a
confusing interface.
The pure scaling alone is available as \scaleDurations.
On 2012-10-09 11:14, Francisco Vila wrote: 2012/10/9 Benkő Pál
benko@gmail.com:
2012/10/9 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
When I learned how to read music, triplets were taught to me as
always shrinking groups and you see a 3 but there is an implicit
2 so we have 3:2. Only the
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
I don't really think that people consider \times and \scaleDurations as
closely related (and their naming choice is also totally different), so
I don't think that there will be
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
2012/10/9 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
I don't really think that people consider \times and \scaleDurations as
closely related (and their naming choice is also totally
Hi,
wow, many more emails arrived! Let me send my thoughts written in the
meantime, and go back offline for a few hours.
i've found a reason why i could support reversed tuplet ratio: if we
decide to allow arbitrary integer durations (so that a3 would mean a
third of the whole note), it would
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
wow, many more emails arrived! Let me send my thoughts written in the
meantime, and go back offline for a few hours.
i've found a reason why i could support reversed tuplet ratio: if we
decide to allow arbitrary integer durations (so that a3
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
So, \tuplet y/x with the exact meaning of \times x/y is less confusing
because it's not times vs time anymore, and the straightforward
fraction is just music without the maths. So, I predict a widespread
adoption.
Do we really
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
So, \tuplet y/x with the exact meaning of \times x/y is less confusing
because it's not times vs time anymore, and the straightforward
fraction is just music without the maths. So, I
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:45:09AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
So, \tuplet y/x with the exact meaning of \times x/y is less confusing
because it's not times vs time anymore, and the straightforward
fraction is just music without the maths. So,
much happier with
\tuplet 3:2 { }
meaning the same thing as
\times 2/3 { }
I think I like this idea.
Me too. However, this requires surgery in the parser, so I think this
feature gets postponed until someone (hehe, David :-) has time to
analyze possible side effects.
Werner
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
i've found a reason why i could support reversed tuplet ratio: if we
decide to allow arbitrary integer durations (so that a3 would mean a
third of the whole note), it would make
In contrast, : is being used for chord and tremolo notation. It has
no relation to music function arguments. The price for using it
would be making \tuplet a reserved word specially treated in the
parser and dealing with the interference of : with its other
meanings in the parser, and
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote:
much happier with
\tuplet 3:2 { }
meaning the same thing as
\times 2/3 { }
I think I like this idea.
Me too. However, this requires surgery in the parser, so I think this
feature gets postponed until someone (hehe,
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
In contrast, : is being used for chord and tremolo notation. It has
no relation to music function arguments. The price for using it
would be making \tuplet a reserved word specially treated in the
parser and dealing with the interference of : with its
On 10/09/2012 05:23 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
As for transposing clefs, i play guitar a bit myself, and i have once
typeset a piece using both G and G_8 clefs. Maybe it was a bad idea,
but for me it was perfectly fine.
Yes, definitely a bad idea. Use 8va. brackets instead when you want
On 10/10/2012 12:08 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, definitely a bad idea. Use 8va. brackets instead when you want to
send everything up an octave like that. It was fine for _you_ because you wrote
it and knew what you wanted anyway, but it would have probably been confusing
for
On 10/08/2012 01:03 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Actually, thinking of it, it would actually be quite simple to calculate the
displayed fraction with durations from the given durations and the tuplet
fraction (except that there is no way to distinguish 3:2 and 4:6).
(m*dur1):(n*dur2) = tuplet
Hi,
i had some spare time when commuting, so i've written down a few
thoughts on this topic.
First, we shouldn't mix content and presentation. I think it's a very
important rule; one of the best things in LilyPond is that she allows
to separate music from its layout.
I think that what Joseph
2012/10/8 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
[...]
Joseph mentioned scores in which tuplet style changes all the time. I
think that a proper solution to this problem is to create custom
shortcuts for overriding TupletNumber style - this way you still have
layout separated from score
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
of 2), because it corresponds
2012/10/8 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
of 2), because it
On 10/08/2012 10:44 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
First, we shouldn't mix content and presentation. I think it's a very
important rule; one of the best things in LilyPond is that she allows
to separate music from its layout.
Yes, fair point. But one thing to be careful of particularly as regards
2012/10/9 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet
On 10/08/2012 11:25 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:
But once I saw a bigband-part for guitar, notated with changing clefs
between bass and treble.
Well, it was the real treble, no transposition. That it was the real
treble was only understandable from the context.
The real stupidity there is surely
On 10/09/2012 01:12 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Absolutely! Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason
for inventing it, IIRC.
Woah, really? I thought the whole point was to avoid the
confusion between \time and
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
Thanks to everyone for their feedback so far.
Here is Version 3 of the proposal.
There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the
current \times command.
1. \tuplet n/m {music expression}
% does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time
% command.
2. \triplet
On 10/07/2012 05:04 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
The design was deliberately restricted to providing
shorthands for the \times commands with 2:3 and 3:2 ratios expressed in
the n/m rational parameter, however there seemed to be a feeling that
the 5:4 ratio was just as common. (See 6. above).
Yes, it
On 2012-10-07 23:14, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Apologies for coming late with these next remarks, but it's perhaps
worth thinking about quite how flexible a \tuplet command could be, in
respect of some of the various modern notations out there.
Just to give a flavour, besides the standard
On 10/07/2012 11:29 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=482
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=817
I implemented those functions for MusicXML import. Note, however, that lilypond
does not automatically use those, you have to manually set them as shown in the
On 2012-10-07 23:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/07/2012 11:29 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=482
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=817
I implemented those functions for MusicXML import. Note, however, that
lilypond
does not automatically use
On 10/07/2012 11:52 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
There is, however, no check whether the fraction with the durations makes
sense and matches the real tuplet (in most cases, itwill not).
Yes, that's what I mean. I'd like to see something where the fractions and
durations are all derived from
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
[...]
Just to give a flavour, besides the standard
|-- n --|
(i.e. bracket with number), and the almost-as-standard
|- n : m -|
(i.e. ratio), you also might
On 10/08/2012 12:40 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I diasagree. Whether or not you we provide separate commands actually
doing the overrides, the choice between all those variants does not
appear to convey musical information individually but just constitutes a
different choice of consistent notation
On 2012-10-08 00:21, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 10/07/2012 11:52 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
There is, however, no check whether the fraction with the durations makes
sense and matches the real tuplet (in most cases, itwill not).
Yes, that's what I mean. I'd like to see something
62 matches
Mail list logo
