OK, I'm starting to have a hard time keeping all the pieces together. I'll
try and summarize the discussion so far.
There seems to be general consensus:
- that having both \times and \tuplet is unnecessary and confusing. It
should
be one _or_ the other.
- that \tuplet is clearer than \times due to the similarity with \time (?)
- there is not much support for the \triplet construct.
- There is not much support for \tuplet 3 {...} due to it's ambiguous
nature.
Can we agree on that much as a start?
So items currently in debate are:
1) What will happen in the case \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e f g a}
- currently with \times it prints two beamed groups of notes with a '3'
spanner over the whole affair (is this rather unintuitive to anyone else?)
- We need debate on what the default behaviour here would be (i.e. as it
stands or producing two standard triplets as would be expected by \tuplet) -
I'll keep my personal opinions out of this summary.
- I would assert that getting the default behaviour as close to what
the "median" musician might want is going to simplify the learning curve.
Leave the scheme programming to those who are more advanced.
- From the programmers and others who like to think about these things -
What
would be the ramifications for other musical constructs in the case we
change
the default behaviou? i.e. are we digging ourselves into a hole somewhere
else?
2) To what extent is simplicity of grammer going to define the
functionality.
- There seems to be a general trend that both \tuplet 3:2 and \tuplet 2/3
are
wanted. Others feel that trimming the grammer is going to be a good thing in
the long run.
- Han-Wen has proposed a compromise (well to change the idea a bit) the
those
who want the old \times 2/3 functionality could get it through a macro and
the
new specification could stand alone.
- We need more debate (or concensus) on the final form. I think it is good
to
keep this discussion outside personal preference. We should also discuss how
this fits into the current language context. (e.g. Mats' assertion that we
should keep the music semantics seperate from the typesetting).
3) If the tuplet command ends up just being the same as times except with
a ':' notation (meaning divide) instade of '/' have we accomplished
anything?
- There is a growing voice suggesting not.
- If we make the syntax optional perhaps so.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user