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 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 to mathematical ratio, and is similar to >>>>> scaling durations. >>>> >>>> +1 >>> >>> -1 from me for this one. We have \times for that already and I can't >>> count the times it took me to get the fraction right. And with the name >>> "\times" there is at least the mnemonic of the name itself. > > I am not in favour of allowing different commands \times 2/3 and > \tuplet 3/2 to do the same job.
Why? Nobody forces you to use a command you don't like. > My voice would go to: just keep \times x/y the way it is. The proposal was not about changing \times. > I can't see what makes 3/2 easier than 2/3. 3 triplets on the time of 2 normal notes. That concept is common enough that one writes 3 (or even 3:2) in order to mark tuplets, not 2/3. What is 2/3 supposed to mean? "Each note will take up 2/3 of its nominal time, making the total phrase's total time, linearly distributed, a ratio of 2/3 of its nominal time" -- that's a mathematician's definition, and it is defective anyhow since it fails to explain the difference between \times 2/3 and \times 4/6. \tuplet 6/4 means getting 6 tuplets where 4 notes would be normally. Now give me a definition of \times 4/6 that is sufficient to differentiate it meaningfully from \times 2/3 > And having the choice of two commands doing the same job with a > slightly different syntax only makes things more confusing for me. Then take the choice once and ignore the existence of the other command for the rest of your life. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
