> On 7 Nov 2014, at 00:37, Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> wrote: > > 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?
It is normal to write a different time signature than the meter. For example, \compoundMeter #(3 2 2 8) might have time signature \time 7/8. I write for example \time 11/16 \set beatStructure = #'(4 3 4) It would nice to have \compoundMeter #((2 2) 3 (2 2) 16), indicating subbeaming (2 2) for the 4s, while still writing \time 11/16 (typical for notating a kopanitsa). _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
