Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Werner LEMBERG]

> (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 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 \tuplet with the
> syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes},

Actually, I would prefer this too.

> but then when the \tuplet expression is parsed, checks should be
> performed that would accept
>          \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e}
> and probably accept
>          \tuplet 3:2 {g4 b8}
> but would reject
>          \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}

Why that?

> You would be opening up a big can of worms by adding a *genuine*
> "\tuplet" construct.

Which one?  I can't see a problem here.  Particularly, it's quite
annoying to write

  \tuplet 3 { c8 c c } \tuplet 3 { c c c } ...

over and over again for longer sequences consisting of triplets.


    Werner