> On the contrary, I think making mathematical sense serves a very
> practical purpose: it is more consistent with the non-tuplet method
> of scaling duration and it is (at least for me) easier to remember.
Mhmm.
> In LilyPond, if I want to print a half note but I only want it to
> use the duration of a quarter note, I use c2*1/2. [...]
Well, this is not the same as having a tuplet... And I fully agree
that this is the right notation here.
> I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
> the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
which should be the same as
\tuplet 3 {...}
And of course it would be nice to make this particular case identical
to
\triplet {...}
> but I thought that this thread was about _reducing_ the number of
> redundant constructs.
Well, I don't consider this a real redundancy. Compare this to, say,
the unit `Hertz' (Hz) which is `redundant' because it's just `per
second' (s ^ -1). In spite of this, nobody would use Gs^-1 instead of
GHz.
A tuplet notation is really not comparable to making a note longer or
shorter.
> I think that having two ways to do tuplets (that are exactly the
> same except for taking the reciprocal of the fraction) is a recipe
> for confusion.
I disagree. I regularly confuse \times with \time -- it's really a
bad idea IMHO to have two such important commands with almost
identical names.
My personal favour would be the introduction of `\tuplet' as described
above.
> By the way, if you really want to use 3/2 instead of 2/3, I'm sure it's
> possible to whip up a scheme function.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
