Pedro Kröger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think it would also be better if the code just used numbers, and does > > a (format "~a" NUMBER) or (number->string NUMBER) in the end. > > Here it is. I also made Graham's suggestion of switching the numbers, > like (compound-time grob 3 16 5 8). This is a very cool example (thanks > Henrik!). I think the ultimate would be to merge the 2 functions and or > detect the behavior automatically or have it passed as a keyword (like > compound-time :equal-div) > All these suggestions make a lot of sense, and thanks Pedro for implementing it and thanks for clarifying let* as compared to define. The code looks better! I will take a look at the autobeaming suggested by Graham. I also thought about merging the two functions. Rather than using a keyword, if the function is called with divtwo==0 use equal divisor. In other words: (compound-time grob 3 8 5 8) would result in 3/8+5/8 and (compound-time grob 3 8 5 0) would give 3+5/8 (as I believe it's a matter of taste what way you want to notate it). Does that make sense? Maybe a keyword makes it simpler to understand?
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
