Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> On 6 Nov 2014, at 20:49, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> >>>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:46, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: >>>> >>>>>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: >>>>>>> Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature >>>>>>>> respected the time signature style, would that qualify as >>>>>>>> useful or as undesirable? For example, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2 + 3 2 + 3 4 >>>>>>>> ----- + C vs. ----- + - >>>>>>>> 4 4 4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Undesirable in my book. >>>>> >>>>> It seems everyone agrees for once. :) >>>>> >>>>> One more case: \compoundMeter #’(n d). The current implementation >>>>> prints this as a fraction (n/d), but I plan to change it to honor the >>>>> style unless somebody objects. >>>> >>>> I lean towards not consulting the style here. \compoundMeter to me >>>> feels like it should just be numeric. >>> >>> A compound meter can have the same iterated subaccent structure as >>> otherwise indicated in the staff by beaming, only that it occurs >>> metrically. In practise, though, one prefers exceptions. So one idea >>> to implement it would be to have a sequence of patterns recognizing >>> metric rhythms, each assigning a formal compound metric structures, >>> the latter is what is used to typeset the beaming structure. >>> >>> A brief description of this compound metric structure: >>> >>> The smallest structure is "in one”: only an accent at the >>> beginning. Write that as I2, I3, I4, ... (For example, Beethoven’s 5th >>> symphony is normally played "in one", though written in 2.) >>> >>> Then one can combine these using "+" and “(...)": a_1 + a_2 + … + a_k >>> means that there is a stronger accent in the beginning of a_1 than on >> >> Hans, I happen to be an engineer. Disciplines like Theoretical >> Electrical Engineering work somewhat like telling a mathematician what >> you are currently working with, have him explode into generalized sets >> of equations, work through the notation, reconvert into engineer math >> and figure out how it may be applied to your actual problem. >> >> This feels somewhat similar. In this particular case, I fail to >> reconnect the dots, however. I just don't see how your math is supposed >> to relate to figuring out whether to typeset C or 4/4 when writing >> \compoundMeter #'(4 4). >> >> Can you spell out what question your reply is supposed to be an answer >> to? > > You wanted \compoundMeter to be numeric, so I gave a possible > algorithmic structure, reiterating discussions of the past on LilyPond > lists. Once one has that, the time signature derives from that, the > question you are asking about.
I guess I am just too far below the intelligence of your target audience to understand even a single sentence of what you are saying. It seems like we need an interpreter between mathematician and engineer. Is there a physicist around? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
