Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> writes:

> I have not been a strong contributor to this thread.  And I have not
> been a strong advocate for the time signatures with a notehead in the
> denominator.  I think all of those time signatures can be expressed
> just as well as a compound meter.
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> In looking at this, is seems the lexer (and the propery
> timeSignatureFraction) are not semantically correct.
>
> Although the time signature looks like a fraction, it is not.  A
> fraction has numbers in the denominator and the numerator (and
> strictly speaking, a fraction properly has integers in the numerator
> and denominator -- if they are not integers, it's a quotient, not a
> fraction, IIUC).  And the time signature has an integer in the
> "numerator" and a duration in the "denominator".

I don't get your point.  Are you objecting to the use of the word
"fraction" or what is your complaint?  The representation is a pair of
integers, not a rational number, so \time 4/4 and \time 2/2 are
different things.

> I'm not sure it is worth the work to get semantically correct, but
> semantically, \time 4/4 should not be a fraction of two integers; it
> should be a pair of a count and a duration.
>
> And if we had semantically correct time signature entry,

Here you are talking about the _entry_ rather than the names used
internally.  So what is your beef with the _entry_?

> Kieren's wish for a different display for the duration would be
> relatively straightforward,

Here you make a statement that somehow your objection to entry or
internal namings, once recognised, magically makes other possibilities
appear.  I don't see it.

> Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not sure that it's worth changing the
> internals since they work so well for the lilypond core functionality
> (traditional western music), but I noticed the semantic error as I
> read this thread.

What do you want to change?  Entry or internals?  And how so?

-- 
David Kastrup