Graham Percival <[email protected]> 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, I predict a widespread
>> adoption.
>
> Do we really need to use the same fraction notation, though?
You mean, like 3/4 meaning 3 notes to 4 parts of a measure?
> I mean, in music we see 3:2 (if people are being pedantic). I'd be
> much happier with \tuplet 3:2 { } meaning the same thing as \times 2/3
> { }
3/2 is a FRACTION, which is a lexical item available as a music function
argument. The proposed \tuplet implementations were presented as Scheme
code that could just be used in a document without recompilation.
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 having the command hardwired and not user-serviceable and
not documented as a music function.
That's not a reasonable price to pay for a one-off command.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
