Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 01:27:23PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> 172 ~ 188 is an abomination anyway.  It would be reasonably
> straightforward to accept a pair here, like #(172 . 188) or
> 172/188 which is equivalent.

Straightforward from a programming perspective, but as far as
printed music is concerned, a tempo range doesn't look anything
like 172/188.  I'm not wild about the scheme range #(172. 188)
either.

Hmm, I wonder if we could steal a page from LaTeX and use
  172 -- 188
to indicate a range?  of course then we might run into problems
with people writing
  172 - 188
so it's not a foolproof solution.

- Graham