Hi Carl, Thanks for weighing in!
> I think all of those time signatures can be expressed just as well as a > compound meter. 1. I’d love for Lilypond to be capable of respecting the desires of a composer (e.g., Orff) in how it displays time signatures. 2. I’m pondering whether 1/6 is superior to 1 / [a single tuplet notehead]… I bet if the preceeding measure had a bunch of triplets, the note-denom version of 1/6 would be far easier to sight-read / process than the numeric 1/6. > In looking at this, is seems the lexer (and the propery > timeSignatureFraction) are not semantically correct. I’m so glad you said this. This has been a vague rumbling feeling in the pit of my stomach for the whole thread, and you finally put into words what’s been bothering me about the whole thing! > I'm not sure it is worth the work to get semantically correct, but > semantically, \time 4/4 should not be a fraction of two integers; it should > be a pair of a count and a duration. Yes! > And if we had semantically correct time signature entry, Kieren's wish for a > different display for the duration would be relatively straightforward … which likely accounts for my naïvely optimistic hopes about how the feature might be implemented. =) > we could not tell the difference between 8.~8 and 8~8., although I can't > imagine how the difference between these two representations would be > important; both represent a duration of 5 eighth-notes. 3/16 + 2/16 != 2/16 + 3/16 ;)0 > I'm not sure that it's worth changing the internals since they work so well > for the lilypond core functionality (traditional western music) I fear you’re correct… but I do love that I’m not the only one that hasn’t totally given up the dream. Cheers, Kieren.