Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[Graham Percival]

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 \tuplet with the
> > > syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes},
> > >     
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer this too.
> >   
> Yes!  \times is shorter than \tuplet to type.

You're joking, right?  It's one letter -- and it really _is_ a letter, 
not one of those silly ()# characters that require the use of the shift key.

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 introducing \tuplet.

Cheers,
- Graham