To answer Carl, yes! To put 2 notes instead of 3, I would put "2:3", which
means "2 instead of 3" or "2 for 3". As David Rogers said, it fits what is
printed, or what would be printed if the whole ratio was there.
Also, is there a reason why the function wasn't named simply \tuplet ?
Frédéric
2006/12/18, David Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Carl Youngblood wrote:
>There are also places where 3/2 is necessary with the current way of
>doing things. For example, I was just doing a piece in 12/8 time
>where triplets are the norm and I needed to do eighth notes with a
>two feel. In this case I had to use \times 3/2 { c8 c } etc. I
>guess in this case you're saying it would be more intuitive to do
>2/3? I really don't mind the way things are now. It's a syntax that
>has to be learned anyway, and once you learn it, it seems about the
>same effort either way.
The way the syntax is now, is (in musical terms) the opposite of what's
printed. Having the syntax match the print is likely to be easier to learn
for at least the majority, if not everyone. (The way the syntax is now, it
makes mathematical sense; which is nice - but I don't think it serves a
practical purpose.)
David
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
