Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:12 AM
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: >> >> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM >> >> > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@googlemail.com> writes: >> > >> >>> In this case, i >> >>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time >> >>> of 2), because it corresponds to mathematical ratio, and is similar to >> >>> scaling durations. >> > >> > -1 from me for this one. We have \times for that already and I can't >> > count the times it took me to get the fraction right. And with the name >> > "\times" there is at least the mnemonic of the name itself. >> >> Absolutely! Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason >> for inventing it, IIRC. > > Woah, really? I thought the whole point was to avoid the > confusion between \time and \times. Yes, you're right. The original suggestion was by Werner, here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/7989 > I think it would be > extremely confusing for "\tuplet x/y" to mean the same thing as > "\times y/x". Inverting the fraction so it corresponded to the normal notation came later from Francisco, referenced here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/14554 which makes the point that \times implies multiplication but \tuplet does not, so the more logical ordering would be better. Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel