Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 5/21/18, 10:02 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of metachromatic" > <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of > metachroma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW, it's trivial in Lilypond to get the program to print out > entirely irrational time signatures or note values with square root > (or third root, or whatever) appended. Turn the time signature off and > then enter code to get Lilypond to print the radical sign with > appropriate numbers inside, etc, while approximating irrational time > signature and/or note values with a large integer ratio. The same > problem applies, however -- Lilypond does OK if you use one or two > irrational tuplet values, like (say) 3 in the time of the square root > of 11, or the square root of 17 in the time of the cube root of 71, > but if you include more than a handful of different such irrational > values you quickly run out of integers with which to represent such > numbers internally within Lilypond, and the program barfs and says > "moment not increasing. Aborting interpretation" and halts. Since > this is a major bug, naturally it has never been addressed, and > obviously it never will be addressed by any of the Lilypond > programmers. Standard, usual, typical, and quotidian.
A tirade from someone who appears quite full of himself and nobody else. LilyPond programmers have addressed a whole lot of non-standard uses over the time. LilyPond's development is mostly driven by interested or self-invested people. Gratuitous insults are not really the most promising manner to make others vested in your case. They are not the most promising approach to get them to work on providing you with the information for doing the work yourself, either. If you as a principal user of such functionality cannot be bothered working on it, why would you imagine that such verbiage is prone to get _others_ to do the work for you? > And for my personal interests in LilyPond, fixing the "major bug" of > failing to work with large irrational tuplet values and time > signatures is completely uninteresting. Midi cannot represent irrational tuplet values either way. We are rather talking about large _rational_ tuplet values used as approximations. LilyPond's "rational" type should indeed get replaced by Guile's rational types which would seriously shift the threshold where things start breaking apart at the cost of efficiency. That's quite a lot of tedious work (I have some started patches for different approaches to that) but of course if its seminal for someone's _own_ work, the motivation for finishing that might be larger. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel