Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Rick Hansen (aka RickH)]

David Rogers wrote:
> 
> Orm Finnendahl wrote:
> 
>>Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:
>>>
>>> >bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d c 
>>bf a 
>>> >g f
>>> >g ef } }
>>> >
>>> >The above would generate a parent tuplet with the number "5" and two
>>> >sub-tuplets with "3" and "2", followed horizontally by the "12" 
>>tuplet.
>>
>>If you intend to think of tuplets as collections of notes of the same
>>duration, the syntax is fine. But what happens, if the elements of the
>>tuplet contain things of different durations (for example, the first
>>part of your suggested tuplet is of an quarter duration and the second
>>half containing the 12 32nds should last a dotted quarter within the
>>parent "5" tuplet)?
> 
> 
> In the Beethoven example, Op.31 Nr.3 at bar 53, the 5-let is a
> quarter-note duration, and the 12-let is another quarter-note duration.
> 
> But this was Rick Hansen's proposal, for how to solve a problem pointed
> out by David Fedoruk, and I was only admiring his solution.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 


When the notes in a bracket are of mixed durations then by default no digit
would be generated only the bracket.  If the user wanted a digit on a
mixed-note tuplet they can add the "\tupletNbr x" indicator within that
bracket of notes.

As for summing the durations to match the parent stated "\tuplet x"
duration...  This would not happen, instead durations stated within a
\tuplet structure would be there solely for the purpose of determining the
STYLE of the noteheads being printed.  IOW durations in a known-duration
tuplet contruct would not participate in any further evaluation math-wise of
expired time, just as a convenient way of setting the noteheads.  Because
the true duration of the whole construct has already been stated on the
"\tuplet x" there is no need to validate further, the tuplets total duration
is still whatever they coded it to be at the outset.



-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Constructive-Criticism-and-a-Question-tf2832276.html#a8079920
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.