Valentin Petzel <[email protected]> writes: > I’m not really sure why you’d call it invasive. It would change > nothing about the way Lilypond works, but just add power to the input > language.
The input language is a comparatively direct representation of the music expressions, so you are not adding power to the input language but are declaring a part of the input language that is to bypass LilyPond's concept of music. > Your points about beaming and grouping are reasonable, but the idea is > not replacing tuplet with such a notation, but making such notation > easier. And there are many cases where the default grouping by beat > structure is pretty much what you want. In the worst case one can > simply group the notes manually, which is still much faster than doing > lots of different tuplets and hiding the Brackets (if you do a piece > that frequently changes between division 2 and division 3 this takes a > stupid amount of time!) LilyPond gives you music functions and other tools for programmatically creating music from input, and that is essentially what you want to do here. -- David Kastrup
