[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:28:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) |
address@hidden escreveu:
> Since the duration would be the second of three arguments, it could not be
> optional, but that's not a problem.
>
> I think (?) this would have the side effect that \tuplet 3:2 2. would
> be the same as \tuplet 6:4 2. or \tuplet 9:6 2., which would mean
> that it would always be OK (even if not required) to express the ratio
> in reduced form (3:2 here).
1. We want to cut back on optional constructs
2. \tuplet 6:4 2. { .. } is a lot of numbers. Not very readable IMO.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, (continued)
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, David Rogers, 2006/12/28
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Orm Finnendahl, 2006/12/28
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, David Rogers, 2006/12/28
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Rick Hansen (aka RickH), 2006/12/28
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Brett Duncan, 2006/12/28
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Erik Sandberg, 2006/12/29
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/12/29
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Brett Duncan, 2006/12/29
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, Luise Marion Frenkel, 2006/12/20
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question, stk, 2006/12/22
- Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=