Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> writes:

> Hi Jean,
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under
>> the impression that the semantics of this
>> new feature should be quite different
>> from the usual \time.
>
> I don’t know about "*quite* different"… but possibly *somewhat* different.
>
>> We usually interpret
>> 6/8 as (4. + 4.) because (4 + 4 + 4) has
>> the representation 3/4. If you write 6
>> over an eight note, you're not meaning
>> (4. + 4.) because you could have written
>> that as 2 over a dotted quarter note.
>> So you really mean (8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8).
>> Correct?
>
> I suppose that’s one way to frame it. But isn’t that just
>
>     \time #'(1 1 1 1 1 1) 6/8
>
> ? i.e., are the semantics of the feature different before or after the
> user interface layer?
>
> Same, TBH, with \compoundMeter: In a perfect world, wouldn’t we want
> the option to write
>
>    \time #'((3 . 4) (3 . 8))
>
> instead of having a whole separate function? Why *wouldn’t* we want a
> \time function that handles all possible time signatures?

Why _would_ we want it?  If it becomes impossible to see what the author
actually wants because there is so much overlap in how the arguments
could be interpreted, where is the advantage?

This is just "I want the computer to typeset what I mean, not what I
say".  But that's not just confusing to computers.

-- 
David Kastrup