Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets

[David Kastrup]

Ian Hulin <address@hidden> writes:

> 1. Should the new \tuplet retain the \times meaning of the fraction,
> i.e. \tuplet 2/3 {c8 c c} uses 2/3 because that's what you'd use if you
> were just using durations: c8*2/3 c c , or
> invert it as \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c c} because that reflects better the
> "three notes in the time of two" definition of a triplet.

Well, I definitely remember enough of my learning curve with LilyPond to
recommend taking the opportunity of renaming for reversing the fraction,
making it correspond with the output from

    \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text

I don't think we need a wealth of shorthands, though: we can instead
just take the tuplet number as a shorthand as 3 is perfectly
distinguishable from 3/1 as LilyPond input.

So \tuplet 3 can be the same as \tuplet 3/2, and \tuplet 2 the same as
\tuplet 2/3, and \tuplet 5 as tuplet 5/4 and \tuplet 6 as \tuplet 6/4.

I am not sure whether other tuplet numbers are unambiguous enough to
warrant a shorthand.

> 2. Should the \tuplet command attempt to validate the length of the
> incoming music expression?  I.e. add up the lengths of the constituent
> notes in the music expression, and see if it would be a valid
> note-length once multiplied (or divided depending on decision for 1.
> above) the fraction.

Probably not.

-- 
David Kastrup