[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

From: Brett Duncan
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:47:20 +1100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20061207)

John Mandereau wrote:
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
But to avoid repeating \tuplet functions for long passages with the
same tuplets, we could admit that kind of syntax :

\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a b c d e d c b a g f e d}

without having one long bracket going through all the notes. But I
understand that you don't want to change that for programming issues.

It is not possible to determine whether "long" tuplets should be
splitted or not; how then would you determine whether

\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}

should be printed as

|----- 3 ----|
 |   |  |   |
 |   |  |   |
X   X  X   X

or as

|- 3 -| |- 3 -|

 |   |\  |\  |
 |   |   |   |
X   X   X   X


In your example,

\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)

can already save from typing \tuplet (\times today) a lot of times.

Yes, I was wondering about this too. It seems to me that either you still need to have \set tupletSpannerDuration or you need to build the tuplet duration into the tuplet function itself, e.g. \tuplet 3:2 2. {c c8 c c4} for John's first example, and \tuplet 3:2 4. {c4 c8 c c4} for the second. But then this is probably making \tuplet a little more complicated than people would like. (unless maybe the duration value is optional and can be omitted?)

Just a thought.



Brett Duncan

"opinio tam stulta non est quam philosophus quidam exprimere non possit"
(there is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it)

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]