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
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 compl
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 with
ax. But I may
> be not right.
>
> Bert
>
> > --- Original Message ---
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: 07. 01. 08., 5:54:21
> > Subject: New argument types (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)
&
ut is syntactically
correct. :-)
So I'd always prefer extensions that do not change the syntax. But I may be not
right.
Bert
> --- Original Message ---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 07. 01. 08., 5:54:21
> Subject: New ar
> >\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
[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 th
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 separat
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 so
> > > . . . 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 t
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
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,
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 im
> 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
>
>
> > 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
> 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
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
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
> . . . 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
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
[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 closel
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
> > 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 mist
> > 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 th
> . . . \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 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 anothe
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*
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 m
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 fun
> ... 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 woul
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} }
> >
> > Mig
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.
Since it's easy to define your own function \triplet
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 programm
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]} co
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 vi
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 t
on math-wise of
expired time, just as a convenient way of setting the noteheads. Because
the true duration of the whole construct has already been stated on the
"\tuplet x" there is no need to validate further, the tuplets total duration
is still whatever they coded it to be at the outset.
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
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 "
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...
>
>bf
r some reason
they wanted to.
With this syntax they could also create sub groupings of tuplet brackets:
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
quot;spread" of the notes and/or sub groupings within
that duration can be notated or left to the artist interpretation, thats
just a counter in a bracket.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Constructive-Criticism-and-a-Question-tf2832276.html#a8076268
Sent from the
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
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 l
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,
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
dgable could explain how to
change 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
>
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
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 languages more and more. For these people,
lilypond typesett
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 syntax
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]
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys 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 b
Han-Wen Nienhuys 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
> >>>
>
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
--- 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 ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
> Since the duration would be the second of three arguments, it could not be
> optional, but that's not a problem.
>
> I think (?) this would have the side effect that \tuplet 3:2 2. would
> be the same as \tuplet 6:4 2. or \tuplet 9:6 2., which would mean
> that it wo
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 10:58, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> I agree that the scores that take most time to type in are those that have
> repeated rhythms like
> \times 2/3 {c c c } c4 \times 2/3 {c c c } c4
> or
> c8 c16 c c4 c8 c16 c c4
> especially if these are combined with slurs. It is certain
> . . . either you still need to have \set tupletSpannerDuration
> or you need to build the tuplet duration into the tuplet function
> itself, e.g. \tuplet 3:2 2. {c c8 c c4} for John's first example,
> and \tuplet 3:2 4. {c4 c8 c c4} for the second. . .
Yes. Up until this point, the argument ha
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
under
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 Henk
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
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}
>
> withou
Mats Bengtsson 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' in it.
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 d
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
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 the
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 numbe
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-fract
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 b
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
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
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.
-
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 confusio
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 }
> >
>
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 i
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
> i
>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
lily
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 con
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 conve
« 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 intr
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 instea
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
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 instead of adding
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 3'
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
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"
> (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.
Ind
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 \tim
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 \
> 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
> 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 w
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 gmail.com> writ
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> Erik Sandberg gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 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
Erik Sandberg gmail.com> writes:
> 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 instead of adding
-- 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
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,
> > 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
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
_
I tried the function and I don't see any incoherence using \tuplet instead
of \times in this situation. Maybe I don't understand the point well.
For me, I wouldn't mid at all to replace entirely the \times function by a
\tuplet function, giving both options of using a fraction (2/3) or the
engrav
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
