Hi again, >> But it would seem better to let the parser do the work by having the >> function accept a ly:duration? directly. Certainly, it would be easier to >> use: >> %%%% >> \timeII 3 4. % logically \time 9/8 >> %%%% > > I considered a separate function, but rejected the idea for several reasons > (backwards compatibility, incompatibility with “stylesheet” mentality, etc.).
hmmmm… Thinking about it a little more, I realize that (a) there really isn’t a backwards compatibility issue *unless* I change \time itself; and (2) as long as \timeII outputs TimeSignatureMusic, “stylesheets” will still apply fine across all TimeSignatures [regardless of what function creates them]. So: In your opinion, would adding a new function be superior overall to “improving” the existing \time function? Thanks, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: [email protected]
