> On 6 Nov 2014, at 20:49, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hans Aberg <[email protected]> writes: > >>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:46, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: >>>>>> Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature >>>>>>> respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as >>>>>>> undesirable? For example, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2 + 3 2 + 3 4 >>>>>>> ----- + C vs. ----- + - >>>>>>> 4 4 4 >>>>>> >>>>>> Undesirable in my book. >>>> >>>> It seems everyone agrees for once. :) >>>> >>>> One more case: \compoundMeter #’(n d). The current implementation >>>> prints this as a fraction (n/d), but I plan to change it to honor the >>>> style unless somebody objects. >>> >>> I lean towards not consulting the style here. \compoundMeter to me >>> feels like it should just be numeric. >> >> A compound meter can have the same iterated subaccent structure as >> otherwise indicated in the staff by beaming, only that it occurs >> metrically. In practise, though, one prefers exceptions. So one idea >> to implement it would be to have a sequence of patterns recognizing >> metric rhythms, each assigning a formal compound metric structures, >> the latter is what is used to typeset the beaming structure. >> >> A brief description of this compound metric structure: >> >> The smallest structure is "in one”: only an accent at the >> beginning. Write that as I2, I3, I4, ... (For example, Beethoven’s 5th >> symphony is normally played "in one", though written in 2.) >> >> Then one can combine these using "+" and “(...)": a_1 + a_2 + … + a_k >> means that there is a stronger accent in the beginning of a_1 than on > > Hans, I happen to be an engineer. Disciplines like Theoretical > Electrical Engineering work somewhat like telling a mathematician what > you are currently working with, have him explode into generalized sets > of equations, work through the notation, reconvert into engineer math > and figure out how it may be applied to your actual problem. > > This feels somewhat similar. In this particular case, I fail to > reconnect the dots, however. I just don't see how your math is supposed > to relate to figuring out whether to typeset C or 4/4 when writing > \compoundMeter #'(4 4). > > Can you spell out what question your reply is supposed to be an answer > to?
You wanted \compoundMeter to be numeric, so I gave a possible algorithmic structure, reiterating discussions of the past on LilyPond lists. Once one has that, the time signature derives from that, the question you are asking about. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
