Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Brett Duncan]

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.
>
> Cheers,
>   
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

--

Brett Duncan
address@hidden

"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)