Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca>
> To: LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
> Cc: Aaron Hill <lilypond@hillvisions.com>, Dan Eble <dan@lyric.works>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:41:46 -0500
> Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> Hi all,
>
> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion
> forward…?
>
> Assuming I’m not:
>
> 1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective*
> would be to have a single public interface
>
>    \time BLAH FOO BAR etc.
>
> which would gracefully and transparently handle all possible time
> signature demands: simple and compound sigs, all possible “denominator”
> representations, beat structures, etc. My first question in this regard: Am
> I wrong [from the user/UI perspective]? I totally get that it may be
> unadvisable from the programmers’ perspective (and for sure from
> backwards-compatibility perspective, etc.) — my question here is more one
> of Lilypond programming philosophy.
>

Yes, this is what I would expect.

What could possibly be the motivation for anything else?

They are all just time signatures.

I suspect they would have to be one function, because how else would you
combine the two?  Each denominator could be either a number or note.

4/4 + 3/4
6/8 + 1/{2}
1/{8.} + 2/4
2/{4} + 3/{8.}

\compoundMeter #'((4 4) (3 4))
\compoundMeter #'((6 8) (1 {2}))
\compoundMeter #'((1 {8.}) (2 4))
\compoundMeter #'((2 {4}) (3 {8.}))

or

\compoundMeter #'((4 4) (3 4))
\compoundMeterSecondUsingNoteDenominator #'((6 8) (1 2))
\compoundMeterFirstUsingNoteDenominator #'((1 8.) (2 4))
\compoundMeterUsingNoteDenominators #'((2 4) (3 8.))



---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> To: Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>, Dan Eble
> <dan@lyric.works>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 17:26:32 +0100
> Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion
> forward…?
> >
> > Assuming I’m not:
> >
> > 1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective*
> > would be to have a single public interface
> >
> >    \time BLAH FOO BAR etc.
> >
> > which would gracefully and transparently handle all possible time
> > signature demands: simple and compound sigs, all possible
> > “denominator” representations, beat structures, etc. My first question
> > in this regard: Am I wrong [from the user/UI perspective]? I totally
> > get that it may be unadvisable from the programmers’ perspective (and
> > for sure from backwards-compatibility perspective, etc.) — my question
> > here is more one of Lilypond programming philosophy.
>
> Personally, I don't see how making it hard for the computer to figure
> out what of a myriad of variants in meaning is intended makes it
> reasonable for the user to see what is intended.
>

No, the point would be to first devise something that users can understand.

If users can understand it, it is possible to get the computer to do so.

Not the other way around.



Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954                                           "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
elaine@flaminghakama.com
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-