Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: >> Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> In general, yes. But some aspects of our syntax haven't been >>> around for a long time -- footnotes, woodwind fingering, compound >>> meters, etc. Do we have the best syntax for those? I mean, >>> maybe David can figure out a way to allow us to write >>> \compoundMeter (3+2)/8 >>> or simply >>> \time (3+2)/8 >>> instead of >>> \compoundMeter #(3 2 8) >> >> I'd have done so already, but \time takes an optional beatstructure >> argument that is indistinguishable from a compound meter, being a number >> list. > > Sorry, i don't understand. You mean that you know how to do this, but > there's something else blocking you from implementing it?
If two different things are indistinguishable, you can't have them both. If (3+2)/8 is shorthand for #(3 2 8), then (2+2)/2 is shorthand for #'(2 2 2) and \time #'(2 2 2) 6/4 already _has_ an assigned meaning. > Anyway, from my point of view (user-friendliness obsession) this would > be fantastic! I'm ready to pay 25 euro for being able to use \time > (3+2)/8 (without any additional hashes, quotes etc) as a legitimate, > fully-supported meter command. It would have been 3+2/8 at any rate since throwing parens into the token syntax would have further messed up the ambiguities, and forms like 3/2+2/5 would not likely have worked. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
