On Monday 15 January 2007 10:25, Valentin Villenave wrote:
2007/1/14, Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Valentin Villenave wrote:
Tuplets are made with the minimalistic \t keyword.
Comments:
- If Erik's proposal to handle fractions such as 2/3 as a new
argument type is
2007/1/14, Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Valentin Villenave wrote:
Tuplets are made with the minimalistic \t keyword.
Comments:
- If Erik's proposal to handle fractions such as 2/3 as a new
argument type is implemented, then it will be trivial to
define your own music function
Valentin Villenave wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm not trying here to feed the troll, but however I'd like to try
to add my two cents in this discussion.
Just a brief foreword: tuplets are very, _very_ useful to many
contemporary composers nowadays, as far as it gives them the ability
to write
Hi everybody,
I'm not trying here to feed the troll, but however I'd like to try
to add my two cents in this discussion.
Just a brief foreword: tuplets are very, _very_ useful to many
contemporary composers nowadays, as far as it gives them the ability
to write complex rhythms and patterns
PROTECTED]
Sent: 07. 01. 08., 5:54:21
Subject: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Erik Sandberg wrote:
BTW, one of the biggest problems (IMHO) in the lilypond language is that
we can't extend the parser to accept durations as parameters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Increasing the number of different argument types for music functions
would almost certainly be extremely useful for users, who, judging from
this mailing list, seem to have an unlimited imagination when it comes to
wanting to be able to extend LP syntax.
I doubt
\foo c \nul 4. % \nul would be a sort of syntactic breath mark
\foo c \ 4. % \ -- same idea as \nul (short, but maybe risky?)
\foo c \\ 4.% \\ -- same as \nul
\foo c =4. % = prefixed to any expression: this is separate item
. . . If we should add a new
Criticism and a Question)
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Erik Sandberg wrote:
BTW, one of the biggest problems (IMHO) in the lilypond language is that
we can't extend the parser to accept durations as parameters to music
functions: \foo c 4. is ambiguous; it's unclear whether the 4. is the
c's duration
On Sunday 07 January 2007 04:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . . Note also that the tupletSequence
function would be implemented entirely in Scheme . . .
I'm not very fluent in Scheme, so this is a naive question.
I presume that ratios like 3:2 (or 2/3) could be made into some kind of
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Erik Sandberg wrote:
BTW, one of the biggest problems (IMHO) in the lilypond language is that
we can't extend the parser to accept durations as parameters to music
functions: \foo c 4. is ambiguous; it's unclear whether the 4. is the
c's duration, or if it's a separate
On Friday 05 January 2007 22:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . . The { m1 m2 m3 } syntax is used for repeat alternatives
already, and the meaning is very clear: Each music expression between the
outer { } is a separate argument. Note also that the tupletSequence
function would be
My point when I started this topic was not to change the whole definition of
the \times function. In fact, I think the function works quite well as it
is. I was mostly talking about improving the interface - i.e. the words
and the syntax we use to call the functions - to make it more intuitive,
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
My point when I started this topic was not to change the whole
definition of the \times function. In fact, I think the function works
quite well as it is. I was mostly talking about improving the
interface - i.e . the words and the syntax we use to call the
functions
. . . Note also that the tupletSequence
function would be implemented entirely in Scheme . . .
I'm not very fluent in Scheme, so this is a naive question.
I presume that ratios like 3:2 (or 2/3) could be made into some kind of
object type (possibly a moment). So I could imagine that it
Trevor --
Thank you for your very clear explanation. I learned a lot from that.
I am nevertheless amazed that a performer would be able to keep track of
15/56ths of a whole note(!).
Note, importantly, that, with the present tuplet syntax, lily handles
all tuplets -- *including broken ones*
I think changing \times to \tuplet is a great idea for the reason
that started the thread: \times is too close to \time.
That I really don't get. LilyPond is written in *English*.
US English or British English? This makes a difference...
There is a word time and there is another word
. . . \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}}
would just be a shorthand for
\tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}
That would add a big semantic burden to the meaning of { and }.
Currently {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}} means the same thing as
{c d e f g a b c d}. I
There is a word time and there is another word times; they don't
mean the same thing, that's all.
Only a native speaker can say that :-) Honestly, it's very easy to
intermix them during fast typing. I don't say that the difference
between those two words is problematic, just that it
Only a native speaker can say that :-) Honestly, it's very easy to
intermix them during fast typing. I don't say that the difference
between those two words is problematic, just that it unnecessarily
increases the probability of a typo.
I respectfully disagree. I've never mistyped
On Friday 05 January 2007 09:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . . \tupletSequence 2/3 {{c d e} {f g a} {b c d}}
would just be a shorthand for
\tuplet 2/3 {c d e} \tuplet 2/3 {f g a} \tuplet 2/3 {b c d}
That would add a big semantic burden to the meaning of { and }.
Currently {{c d e} {f g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
I think changing \times to \tuplet is a great idea for the reason that
started the thread: \times is too close to \time.
That I really don't get. LilyPond is written in *English*. There is a
the other, perhaps more valid reason, is that \tuplet more closely
When I started this topic, the point was to suggest a more intuitive syntax,
which is closer to the musicians' language and the output on the score. That
is why I proposed \tuplet (closer to musicians's language) and 3:2 (closer
to the output of the score). In my opinion, I though this function
. . . The { m1 m2 m3 } syntax is used for repeat alternatives
already, and the meaning is very clear: Each music expression between the
outer { } is a separate argument. Note also that the tupletSequence
function would be implemented entirely in Scheme . . .
{ {g8 f e} \seq {b8 a g} }
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
the other, perhaps more valid reason, is that \tuplet more closely matches
the purpose than \times.
OK, I'm clearly in the minority here; I think of
\times 2/3 {c8 d e}
as a series of 12th notes. I would be delighted if LilyPond let me
write
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
the other, perhaps more valid reason, is that \tuplet more closely matches
the purpose than \times.
OK, I'm clearly in the minority here; I think of
\times 2/3 {c8 d e}
as a series of 12th notes. I would be delighted
To be serious: Do you see a necessity for a basic LilyPond command to
be an abbreviation of another? Just think of editors which are able
to complete a command with the tab key as soon as you type the first
few letters (Emacs, for example). In case of \time vs. \times, you
always have to
I would be delighted if LilyPond let me write
c12 d e
Then it would need to know what kind of note head and how many flags
it should use for the note. However, you can write c8*2/3 d e
to get the duration you want (even though LilyPond won't add any tuplet
marker).
You're right.
For the syntax topic, I would also suggest to standardize the tweak entries.
At this moment, we can have for example :
\override Voice.Textscript #'padding = #3 (a number)
\override Voice.Stem #'stencil = #ly:stem::print (a function)
#(set-global-staff-size 13)
\set fontSize = #2
This
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 22:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... in irregular, tuplet-intensive music it may be sensible to create a
music function for sequences of tuplets. In addition, it's IMHO a more
lilypondesque solution than tupletSpannerDuration, once we support
fractions as music
On Monday 01 January 2007 20:57, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
Might it be possible to use
\tuplet 3:2 {x x x}
for the usual operation, and if we want to have many tuplets of the
same kind, to use
\tuplet 3:2 { {x x x} {y y y} {z z z} }
Might resolve the
... in irregular, tuplet-intensive music it may be sensible to create a
music function for sequences of tuplets. In addition, it's IMHO a more
lilypondesque solution than tupletSpannerDuration, once we support fractions
as music function arguments.
If I understand you correctly, this would
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... in irregular, tuplet-intensive music it may be sensible to create a
music function for sequences of tuplets. In addition, it's IMHO a more
lilypondesque solution than tupletSpannerDuration, once we support fractions
as music function
On Thursday 28 December 2006 11:13, Brett Duncan wrote:
Erik Sandberg wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote:
Hello:
I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view
where the
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
Unfortunately, the number above does not always follow from the duration.
E.g., the factors 2/3 and 4/6 are mathematically equal, but give different
numbers. It is probably difficult to define when to use 4/6 and 2/3,
respectively (e.g., I guess {c8[ c16 c c8]} could
Erik Sandberg wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 11:13, Brett Duncan wrote:
Erik Sandberg wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote:
Hello:
I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
look at this problem. The first is from a
Erik Sandberg wrote:
On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote:
Hello:
I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view
where the programmer is experienced with some computer languages,
these
with the number 5 and two
sub-tuplets with 3 and 2, followed horizontally by the 12 tuplet.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Constructive-Criticism-and-a-Question-tf2832276.html#a8077255
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Brett Duncan-2 wrote:
Here's a different idea: instead of specifying the ratio for a
tuplet or set of tuplets, what about specifying the duration of a
tuplet, and letting LP determine what number appears over the beam?
...to which Rick Hansen replied:
Given your example of...
bf16[d, f
Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:
bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d c bf a
g f
g ef } }
The above would generate a parent tuplet with the number 5 and two
sub-tuplets with 3 and 2, followed horizontally by the 12 tuplet.
If you
Orm Finnendahl wrote:
Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:
bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d c
bf a
g f
g ef } }
The above would generate a parent tuplet with the number 5 and two
sub-tuplets with 3 and 2, followed horizontally by
/Constructive-Criticism-and-a-Question-tf2832276.html#a8079920
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Rick Hansen (aka RickH) wrote:
David Rogers wrote:
Orm Finnendahl wrote:
Am 28. Dezember 2006, 11:30 Uhr (-0800) schrieb David Rogers:
bf16[d, f ef] \tuplet 4 { { { d16 ef f } { g a } } { bf32a c bf d c
bf a
g f
g ef } }
The above would generate a parent
their positioning.
Trevor
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+t.daniels=treda.co.u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
David Fedoruk
Sent: 25 December 2006 05:32
To: Lilypond mailing list
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Hello:
I've been
On Saturday 23 December 2006 03:10, Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
Might it be possible to use
\tuplet 3:2 {x x x}
for the usual operation, and if we want to have many tuplets of the same
kind, to use
\tuplet 3:2 { {x x x} {y y y} {z z z} }
Might resolve the clarity problems.
Doesn't look
On Monday 25 December 2006 07:05, Joe Neeman wrote:
On 12/21/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument
type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions, both with
On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote:
Hello:
I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view
where the programmer is experienced with some computer languages,
these days its upper level
On 12/21/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument
type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions, both with
signature
(tuplet-fraction? music?)
it would be cool if we could
--- Brett Duncan wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}
should be printed as
|- 3 |
__
| | | |
| | | |
X X X X
or as
|- 3 -| |- 3 -|
| |\ |\ |
| | | |
X X X X
If we are going to worry about seperating the music from the
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
--- Brett Duncan wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}
should be printed as
|- 3 |
__
| | | |
| | | |
X X X X
or as
|- 3 -| |- 3 -|
| |\ |\ |
| | | |
X X X X
If we are going to worry about seperating the
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanwen at lilypond.org writes:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
--- Brett Duncan wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {c4 c8 c c4}
should be printed as
|- 3 |
__
| | | |
| | | |
X X X X
or as
|- 3 -| |- 3 -|
| |\ |\ |
| |
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanwen at lilypond.org writes:
If we are going to worry about seperating the music from the
typesetting,
then
it is worth observing that these two are equivalent musically.
It doesn't
No, they aren't. The stresses fall in different places. In
Might it be possible to use
\tuplet 3:2 {x x x}
for the usual operation, and if we want to have many tuplets of the same
kind, to use
\tuplet 3:2 { {x x x} {y y y} {z z z} }
Might resolve the clarity problems.
Frédéric
2006/12/22, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
Might it be possible to use
\tuplet 3:2 {x x x}
for the usual operation, and if we want to have many tuplets of the
same kind, to use
\tuplet 3:2 { {x x x} {y y y} {z z z} }
Might resolve the clarity problems.
That sounds like a great idea! (or some similar
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 10:58, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
... hmm, what about allowing
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e} \tuplet { f e d}
Again, I definitely vote against! We already now have too many
optional constructs in the syntax, which causes more confusion than
it helps.
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:51, Graham Percival wrote:
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
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 15:25, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
Well, in that case
Erik Sandberg wrote:
What about:
\tuplets 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
We could also make \tuplet and \tuplets differ on the iterator level, so that
the tupletSpannerDuration property affects \tuplets expressions but not
\tuplet expressions.
I think that may just cause more
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own argument
type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions, both with
signature
(tuplet-fraction? music?)
it would be cool if we could pull this off, that would make \time generic too.
--
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions,
both with signature
(tuplet-fraction? music?)
Maybe such an argument type can also be used in functions like
\compressMusic and
Paul Scott:
Karl Hammar wrote:
...
I support Eriks idea:
. it is much easier to write 2 3 instead of 2/3
much?? It's about the same on my keyboard. 2/3 is even easier with the
numeric keypad.
Well, it depends on which keyboard layout you are using.
The swedish one is like
On Thursday 21 December 2006 12:55, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions, both
with signature
(tuplet-fraction? music?)
it would be cool if
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
On Thursday 21 December 2006 12:55, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic music functions, both
with signature
(tuplet-fraction? music?)
Stephen Kress wrote:
4. By default, a single number will be engraved in the tuplet bracket.
There is already the text property of the TupletNumber object that can be
tweaked to get the ratio printed if one so desires. In other words, no
changes need to be made to LP in how the single
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
How exactly will this work. \times 2/3 {c8 d e f g a} does not produce the
output _I_ would expect, which is two standard triplets. Instead it produces
two triplets with a single spanner with the text '3' in it. Do we want to
work on this default notation at
On Thursday 21 December 2006 15:01, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
On Thursday 21 December 2006 12:55, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Erik Sandberg escreveu:
BTW, in this case it may be good to register the fraction as its own
argument type, so \tuplets and \tuplet are generic
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
But to avoid repeating \tuplet functions for long passages with the
same tuplets, we could admit that kind of syntax :
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a b c d e d c b a g f e d}
without having one long bracket going through all the notes. But I
understand that you don't
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengtsson at ee.kth.se writes:
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
How exactly will this work. \times 2/3 {c8 d e f g a} does not produce
the
output _I_ would expect, which is two standard triplets. Instead it
produces
two triplets with a single spanner with the text '3'
Yes, that makes sense.
Frédéric
2006/12/21, John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
But to avoid repeating \tuplet functions for long passages with the
same tuplets, we could admit that kind of syntax :
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a b c d e d c b a g f e d}
without
On 12/20/06, Kress, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. Based on what everyone has been saying and seeming to come to an
agreement on, here's the details of the changes that we are proposing be
made.
1. \times is replaced by \tuplet since tuplet makes more musical sense and
convert-ly
I have enclosed two messages which I think are getting at the same problem in
different ways. Regardless of \tuplet vs. \times and the associated programming
discussion, I think the fact that Lily's default is to print nonsense in this
kind of case, should be thought of as a bug.
Jonathan
John Mandereau wrote:
Frédéric Chiasson wrote:
But to avoid repeating \tuplet functions for long passages with the
same tuplets, we could admit that kind of syntax :
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a b c d e d c b a g f e d}
without having one long bracket going through all the notes. But I
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the
bare argument 3: \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of
course, I'm a dodo, but I predict that Mats Erik several others
would wind up spending a lot of time explaining what \times 7 (or
\tuplet 7)
Paul Scott wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Indeed, `\times 3' is problematic, but `\tuplet 3' sounds clear to me.
Additionally, I suggest that `\tuplet 3' prints the `3' above the
group, while `\tuplet 3:2' prints `3:2' (which some composers prefer).
You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword
Please don't add redundant constructs, that will just cause the confusion.
If we introduce \tuplet, then we should definitely remove \times, just as
Graham said.
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Indeed, `\times 3' is problematic, but `\tuplet 3' sounds clear to me.
Additionally, I suggest that `\tuplet
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3:2 don't mean the same thing:
\times 2/3 {c8 d e d e f}
makes sense, but I don't think that
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
does. The least messy option would be the status quo. The keyword
\times is
Karl Hammar wrote:
Werner:
Erik:
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
parser machinery.
...
I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
proper music function, e.g. as
\tuplet 2 3 {...}
This would remove rules from the parser
« Although I like the idea of accepting both \tuplet 3:2 and \tuplet 2/3,
I don't like the notion of having \tuplet and \times. I suppose we
could keep \times as an old command and remove it from the manual to
avoid confusion... but that seems silly. Either eliminate \times, or
don't bother
Ok. Based on what everyone has been saying and seeming to come to an agreement
on, here's the details of the changes that we are proposing be made.
1. \times is replaced by \tuplet since tuplet makes more musical sense and
convert-ly can easily be updated to make the change. Because of
Good!
Frédéric
2006/12/20, Kress, Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok. Based on what everyone has been saying and seeming to come to an
agreement on, here's the details of the changes that we are proposing be
made.
1. \times is replaced by \tuplet since tuplet makes more musical sense
and
And I definitely don't want \times #'(2 . 3) This pseudo-Scheme syntax
is
very hard to understand for the beginner, especially the ' ! The
least
Scheme syntax necessary, the better!
I agree!
Tim Reeves___
lilypond-user mailing list
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
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
/Mats
___
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
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 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
Well, in that case just stay with \times.
Werner
___
On Tue 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
This should be a rather trivial change, so once we have consensus on the
list
I consent. I don't mind the current syntax, but \tuplet is definitely more
clear than \times.
Eyolf
--
It is Mr. Mellon's credo that $200,000,000 can do no
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
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 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is
Paul Scott wrote:
Is it relevant that ':' and '/' actually both mean divide?
In music, an expression like 3:2 has a specific, universally-agreed-upon
meaning. Therefore, IMO, a broader mathematical meaning is not really important
in this context.
David
Well, in that case just stay with \times.
I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \times and
replace it by \tuplet (which I think is a good idea). Just wanted to
see if anybody had any bright idea on a command name that's accurate
also in this special case.
Han-Wen says that
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
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 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frédéric Chiasson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 déc. 2006 17:45
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I prefer to keep the punctuation : and / to avoid confusion.
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Erik Sandberg [EMAIL
Might be an idea, but why should we keep two functions making the same
function?
Does it cost that much on functionality to use two differents syntax in the
same function?
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
Erik Sandberg mandolaerik at
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
parser machinery.
Why do you think so? Sometimes syntactic sugar is essential to make
certain situations more comprehensible. Just think of TeX's `=' mark
in things like
\count\foo=1
which can be omitted.
I think it
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
with \time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Opinion --
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the bare
argument 3: \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of course, I'm a
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
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \times
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the
bare argument 3: \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of
course, I'm a dodo, but I predict that Mats Erik several others
would wind up spending a lot of time explaining what \times 7 (or
\tuplet 7) means.
Indeed, `\times
Graham Percival gpermus at gmail.com writes:
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
In terms of making it easier, I don't know if it would be straight forward
or
not, but if the PDF version of the manual had chapter numbers in the table
on
contents that showed on the bookmark pane (to the left)
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
Ay - I hear you there. I have been considering taking on this project, and I
still need to figure out if I have time before I get myself in over my head
and unable to keep up with the commitment others might have made to me. A
couple of questions I have been
Jonathan «puts the finger» on an interesting topic.
While most of the basic commands for note entry are quite intuitive (and
that's a good thing!), there are some commands that the syntax seems
counter-intuitive for a composer or a simple musician.
For example, the command \times. Normally, we
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
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
