She says the bracket can be extended to the rhythmical position that the tuplet
conceptually ends on, even if there's no note there. However, it seems to me
that the example David gave is wrong musically. It should be [ crochet quaver
] [ quaver crochet ] to allow the brackets to be placed where they lie
musically.
--
Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From: James
To: Phil Holmes
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org ; David Kastrup
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: How should tupletSpannerDuration actually work?
Phil,
On 12 January 2013 11:20, Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org>
To: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:25 AM
Subject: How should tupletSpannerDuration actually work?
I have a hard time considering the output of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\version "2.16.0"
\relative c' {
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 2)
\times 2/3 { c8 d e f g a g f e d c d }
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 { c4 d e f g a g f e d c d }
}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
useful:
I think that looks OK? It can't put correct triplet brackets over the
crochets because the triplets are 1.5 crochets long. What do you think is
wrong?
Does Mrs G in her book cover single note tuplet signifiers?
I might expect for instance that a tuplet in this case _would_ have 'a
bracket' but with the tupelet over the top of it rather than in between it.
James_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
