Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Matevž Jekovec]

Graham Percival pravi:
> 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.
>
> I'm with Werner here -- I don't see grammar complexity as a problem. 
> I enthusiastically support
> \tuplet 3:2 { }
> \tuplet 2/3 { }
>
> meaning the same thing.  I'm not convinced that
> \triplet { }
> is worth having, though.  The advantage of \triplet{} over \tuplet
> X:/Y isn't clear to me.
I vote for \tuplet 2/3 {}. It has a common syntax to \time 4/4 for
example. And it represents the factor which the group of notes is
multiplied by, so I don't think there's a dilema about which number is
first, 2 or 3.

I like \tuplet 3:2 as well, but the syntax is already too spread in Lily
IMO. We use one naming for \time, other for \key, another now for
\tuplet... I don't think it's generally a good idea. Users will only
become confused about the colons.

As for the triplet, it is a most-widely used tuplet (I'd say 90% of all
the tuplets out there), so I vote for the triplet as well.
\triplet = \tuplet 2/3


Regards.
- Matevž

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature