Re: alternative notation for tuplets (idea)?

[Bernardo Barros]

One think I don't like, since I use a lot of tuplets, is the
similarity between "time" and "times".
Why not \tuplet 9/8 instead of \times 8/9 ?

2010/10/15 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
> Hi,
> an idea about tuplets came to my head (and a quick seach suggested that it
> wasn't discussed before).
> In LilyPond we write durations in form of denominators, i.e. c4 = "c note
> that lasts 1/4 the duration of a whole note", d16 = "d note with a duration
> 16 times shorter than whole note" etc., but for the tuplets we need the
> \times notation. Of course it works, but maybe we can make it simpler?
> Why not use numbers other than powers of 2? For example,
> c1 d3 e3 c3 d1 would mean c1 \times 2/3 { d2 e2 c2 } d1
> c3 d6 e2 would mean \times 2/3 { c2 d4 } e2
> c20 c c c c c c c c c e2 d9 d d d d d d d d  would mean \times 4/5 { c16 c c
> c c } \times 4/5 { c16 c c c c } e2 \times 8/9 { d8 d d d d d d d d }
> and so on.
> In my opinion it would be useful for simple tuplets - input would look less
> cumbersome and would be faster to type. Of course for complicated tuplets
> and some special uses old syntax should be used.
> What do you think?
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>