Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Erik Sandberg]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:51, Graham Percival wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> >> I think Eriks point is actually well founded.  The discussion started
> >> with my discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding
> >> syntax is not really in that direction.
> >
> > Another option:
> >
> > - add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
> >
> > - replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3)  ; this can be implemented with
> > a standard music function
>
> Oh God no.  It took me a year to get used to #'(2 . 3) -- I kept on
> trying '#( and #( and #'(2.3)... every time I gave up after ten minutes
> and found an example from the documentation to copy.

Scheme has rational numbers as a builtin type, so it _is_ possible to pass the 
easy-to-type #2/3 as an argument to a music function (AFAIK, this is the only 
case where scheme doesn't use polish notation).

Unfortunately, this would not work with \times: #2/3 and #4/6 are the same 
rational number, but 2/3 and 4/6 are different tuplet fractions. Also, Scheme 
rational numbers may not contain whitespaces, so #2 / 3 is not the same as 
#2/3.

(hm.. for obvious mathematical reasons this solution doesn't work, but if it 
WOULD have worked, it would have been a nice solution in a mathematical 
sense)

-- 
Erik