Ian Hulin <i...@hulin.org.uk> writes: > 1. Should the new \tuplet retain the \times meaning of the fraction, > i.e. \tuplet 2/3 {c8 c c} uses 2/3 because that's what you'd use if you > were just using durations: c8*2/3 c c , or > invert it as \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c c} because that reflects better the > "three notes in the time of two" definition of a triplet.
Well, I definitely remember enough of my learning curve with LilyPond to recommend taking the opportunity of renaming for reversing the fraction, making it correspond with the output from \override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text I don't think we need a wealth of shorthands, though: we can instead just take the tuplet number as a shorthand as 3 is perfectly distinguishable from 3/1 as LilyPond input. So \tuplet 3 can be the same as \tuplet 3/2, and \tuplet 2 the same as \tuplet 2/3, and \tuplet 5 as tuplet 5/4 and \tuplet 6 as \tuplet 6/4. I am not sure whether other tuplet numbers are unambiguous enough to warrant a shorthand. > 2. Should the \tuplet command attempt to validate the length of the > incoming music expression? I.e. add up the lengths of the constituent > notes in the music expression, and see if it would be a valid > note-length once multiplied (or divided depending on decision for 1. > above) the fraction. Probably not. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel