Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 3

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>> In contrast, : is being used for chord and tremolo notation.  It has
>> no relation to music function arguments.  The price for using it
>> would be making \tuplet a reserved word specially treated in the
>> parser and dealing with the interference of : with its other
>> meanings in the parser, and having the command hardwired and not
>> user-serviceable and not documented as a music function.
>> 
>> That's not a reasonable price to pay for a one-off command.
>
> I'm not sure about the validity of your conclusion.  Writing tuplets
> is such a central element of inputting music that a special treatment
> is probably justified, even at the cost of hardwiring.

We are talking about writing \tuplet 3:2 { ... } instead of \tuplet 3/2
{ ... } here.  Whether tuplets are central or not, this single-character
difference is purely cosmetic, and it is well-known that
obsessive-compulsive cosmetic surgery is not exactly guaranteed to
maximize the obtained output of beauty.

In the end, LilyPond needs to fit together like a fugue; local
beautification without consideration of the whole is painting yourself
into corners that become increasingly harder to get out of again.

> However, this is nothing I suggest for immediate implementation; as
> mentioned in another mail, I think this can be safely postponed.

Implementing syntax not in harmony with the rest of the syntax is not
really desirable, so "safely postponed" may deliver a wrong message as
it implies an eventual delivery and may keep people from thinking how to
make best use of the existing framework.

This paragraph was supposed to contain some more pompous platitudes, but
I need to sleep right now.

-- 
David Kastrup