Thanks for that lengthy answer, David!
Of course it's easy for me to find pros and cons without having the
responsibility over such a big project. At the end of the day it's you devs
that watch over the sanity and compatibility of Lilypond - and that's good
this way. After all I just wanted to
On 3/26/21, 5:41 PM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Valentin Petzel"
wrote:
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
Valentin Petzel 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
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.
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
Christian Masser writes:
> Hi David!
>
> Fully understanding that you would probably be the one that would
> (have or not have to) implement this mess,
No, that isn't it. I am not really all that conservative: there have
been loads of stuff I squeezed into the existing syntax, usually trying
Hi David!
Fully understanding that you would probably be the one that would (have or
not have to) implement this mess, instead of trying to answer every single
question you asked, I'd like to make a technical proposal of how those
notes could be rendered. (And just for context: I very well
> Things like these should be easy in Lilypond, considering it's sheer >
flexibility and hackability. And if I were a composer writing in 5/6, > i
would probably be happy if I could just write "c2 d6 e6 |".
Except when it wouldn’t be easy to notate
Christian Masser writes:
> Just adding my two cents to this debate. In my humble opinion it's pretty
> clear what "12" in this context means as Lilypond's syntax is always about
> the divisor. c4 is always a quarter of a whole note. Therefore c12 would
> always be a twelth of a whole note, thus
Just adding my two cents to this debate. In my humble opinion it's pretty
clear what "12" in this context means as Lilypond's syntax is always about
the divisor. c4 is always a quarter of a whole note. Therefore c12 would
always be a twelth of a whole note, thus a third of a quarter note. And c7
Kevin Barry writes:
> I think the convenience of this feature does not justify the added
> complexity.
It's mostly the conceptual vagueness that is the problem here. There
are no actual note values corresponding graphically to the input in an
unambiguous manner, so LilyPond would need to do
I think the convenience of this feature does not justify the added
complexity.
Kevin
Le 26/03/2021 à 14:26, Jean Abou Samra a écrit :
Le 26/03/2021 à 12:43, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7
for 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2
and so on.
LilyPond is a notation program first, and your
Le 26/03/2021 à 12:43, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7
for 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2
and so on.
LilyPond is a notation program first, and your proposal does not map
to notation since tuplets also
Hello!
Currently Lilypond only supports powers of 2 for specifying duration. Could we
use the other numbers for common divisions?
For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7 for 8*7/8,
9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2 and so on.
This would be quite
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7
>>> for 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2
>>> and so on.
>>
>> LilyPond is a notation program first, and your proposal does not map
>> to notation since tuplets also involve
>> For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7
>> for 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2
>> and so on.
>
> LilyPond is a notation program first, and your proposal does not map
> to notation since tuplets also involve choices of beaming and
>
Valentin Petzel writes:
> Hello!
>
> Currently Lilypond only supports powers of 2 for specifying
> duration. Could we use the other numbers for common divisions?
>
> For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7 for
> 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for
Hello Werner,
I just suggested these value as this seems to be what is commonly found with
music (and it is rhythmically viable nontheless). Basically we’re rounding a
division to the nearest power of 2 (it does not make a lot of sense to use 7
4th notes or something like 15 8th notes for such
Hello,
Does \scaleDurations not already fit the bill?
See the section "Scaling durations" at
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation-big-page
On 2021-03-26 02:19, Valentin Petzel wrote:
Hello!
Currently Lilypond only supports powers of 2 for specifying duration. Could we
use
> Currently Lilypond only supports powers of 2 for specifying
> duration. Could we use the other numbers for common divisions?
>
> For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7
> for 8*7/8, 9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2
> and so on.
>
> This would
You are on your own on that one. I think it just leads to the unpleasant
chaos of having to look up what those mean in a table somewhere after you
have forgotten why you put that into your score.
-Shane
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20 PM Valentin Petzel wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Currently Lilypond
Hello!
Currently Lilypond only supports powers of 2 for specifying duration. Could we
use the other numbers for common divisions?
For example: We could use 3 for 2*3/2, 5 for 4*5/4, 6 for 4*3/2, 7 for 8*7/8,
9 for 8*9/8, 10 for 8*5/4, 11 for 8*11/8, 12 for 8*3/2 and so on.
This would be quite
22 matches
Mail list logo
