Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > On Nov 6, 2014, at 08:46 , David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> I lean towards not consulting the style here. \compoundMeter to me >> feels like it should just be numeric. >> >> Of course, to allow for full laziness, it might make sense to interpret >> >> \compoundMeter #'(4 . 4) >> >> properly as 4/4 then because one can then cheat one's way around writing >> >> \compoundMeter 4/4 >> >> for a numeric time signature. > > My gut feeling is that formatting a compound meter should encompass > formatting a simple meter, and I’ve been trying to understand where to > draw the line. > > If both \compoundMeter #(2 3 8) and \compoundMeter 4/4 could be made > to work, why bother keeping both \compoundMeter and \time? Why not > just let \time do all the work?
Because of \time #'(2 3 2) #'(8 8) Is it \time (2 + 3)/2 followed by #'(8 8) or is it \time 8/8 with a beat structure of 2+3+2 ? > (I’m not proposing that I combine these commands, but that I leave the > code in a state from which it is easier to move later.) The sentiment is good, but it does not fit with the existing forms. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
