Re: entering music without \time

[Erik Sandberg]

On Saturday 11 September 2004 11.48, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> Erik Sandberg <address@hidden> writes:
> > Given that {c16*2/3 c c c c c} can be interpreted both as \times 2/3 and
> > as \times 4/6, the only other thing I can see is to look at beaming.
> > I.e., a beamed group of 6 identically *2/3 notes will probably want a 6
> > over it rather than a 3.
>
> We cannot look at beaming too, it is not known at the time the music
> expressions are processed. I used an other rule which finaly made it
> possible to have =====6=====.

I don't understand what rule you are using. It produces some strange results, 
e.g. \tuplify \repeat unfold 12 c32*2/3 produces a "9" over it, not a 12 as 
would be expected.

More importantly, I can't convince it to place a 6 over six c8*2/3:s, as in:

  6
------
||||||
******

and {c16*2/3 c c} gets a 6, I expected a 3. Both cases occur in real music; 
6/4 usually just means that one tuplet number is written above each 6 equally 
long notes.

Would it be possible to use the auto-beam-setting in the multiple calculation 
process?

> > I understand that c1*4/3 is not a possibility. I mean that there just
> > should be some way to make the the tuplification ignore a note. Just in
> > case someone wants it. The typical use of tuplification is to apply it to
> > a score; so if there is one fraction somewhere that shouldn't be
> > tuplified you will need _something_. E.g. it would be enough with
> > something like
> > \tuplify { ...
> > \excludeFromTuplify {...}
> > ...
> > }
>
> I don't know how to do that easily.
> In the meantime, one can do: \tuplify { ... } R1*3/4 \tuplify { ... }

The only problem is that this makes things like

\tuplify <<
\new Staff {..}
\new Staff {.. R1*3/4 .. }
\new Staff {..}
>>
impossible.

Wouldn't it be possible to just add a custom property somewhere, like 
Voice.dontTuplify, that the tuplifier listens to? so that
\set Staff.dontTuplify = #t
would make the tuplifier to ignore the current staff for a while.

> Besides that, do you think most real cases are covered?

Yes, as far as I can tell. Great job!

Erik