Re: elegant compound time signatures

[Joseph Wakeling]

Graham Percival wrote:
>> One thing your snippet doesn't display -- time signatures of the form,
>>
>> 3+3+2
>>   8
>>
>> Is this possible?
> 
> Yes, see the very first message in this thread!

Forgive me, that was badly phrased.  What I was really meaning to ask
was if you could add this second case as an extra example to the snippet
-- I think it's important to give the two different versions as they are
both widely used notations.  (They could also be interpreted somewhat
differently: I would probably use 3/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 where I intended the
compound elements to be less 'joined' than 3+3+2/8.)

> Again, see the first message in this thread, or even better, the
> "improved elegant time signatures" (or some similar subject) email
> I sent a few hours later.

OK, I think I see now in principle how these things can be done with
your method.  Again, what my request should really be interpreted to
mean is, can some such cases be added to the documentation snippet --
but I recognise you have limited time.

I don't think I have the second email you sent ... ?  I only have emails
with the same subject as this mail.