Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion started with my
discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding syntax is not
really in that direction.
Another option:
- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
- replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3) ; this can be implemented with
a standard music function
Oh God no. It took me a year to get used to #'(2 . 3) -- I kept on
trying '#( and #( and #'(2.3)... every time I gave up after ten minutes
and found an example from the documentation to copy.
I'm with Werner here -- I don't see grammar complexity as a problem. I
enthusiastically support
\tuplet 3:2 { }
\tuplet 2/3 { }
meaning the same thing. I'm not convinced that
\triplet { }
is worth having, though. The advantage of \triplet{} over \tuplet X:/Y
isn't clear to me.
As long as we only introduce one of them (probably 3:2) in the tutorial,
I don't see it being a problem for new users.
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
