lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)

 From: Erik Sandberg Subject: Re: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:06:05 +0100 User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

On Monday 15 January 2007 10:25, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> > Valentin Villenave wrote:
> > > "Tuplets are made with the minimalistic \t keyword".
> >
> >
> > - If Erik's proposal to handle fractions such as 2/3 as a new
> >   argument type is implemented, then it will be trivial to
> >   define your own music function called \t within LilyPond.
> >   I definitely do not think that it's a good idea to use such
> >   heavily abbreviated command names by default in LilyPond
> >   but on the other hand it's an excellent solution for you and
> >   many others to add such a customized music function and
> >   this specific example should be included as a standard example
> >   in the documentation.
> >
> >    /Mats
>
> Thank you Mats;
> it would be indeed heavily abbreviated. But what about the second part
>
> of my suggestion:
> > > "If you do not specify a tuplet argument, the argument last entered is
> > > used for the next tuplet. The argument of the first tuplet in input
> > > defaults to 2/3."
>
> When you use the \times command, most of the time it's to use 2/3, or
> to use some argument you've already been using. Is we keep "\times", I
> agree to say this command can't go without any argument. But if it
> becomes "\tuplet", why couldn't we implemement some default rule ?
>
> Where
> \times {f8 g a} ====>doesn't mean anything,
>
> \tuplet {f8 g a} ====>makes sense, doesn't it ?

it's easy to write a separate function
\triplet {f8 g a}
for this purpose.
(IMHO, this would be a useful addition to the standard lily distribution)

--
Erik