|
From: | Frédéric Chiasson |
Subject: | Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question |
Date: | Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:33:08 -0500 |
Note, importantly, that, with the present tuplet syntax, lily handles
all tuplets -- *including broken ones* -- correctly out of the box.
This sort of thing brings Finale and Sibelius screaming to their
knees. (This seems to be an extension of the fact that lily gets one
thing *exceedingly* correct: the duration model of musical time. Out
of the box you can also specify time signatures like 6/15, 5/28, 3/10
and so on, all of which bring other musical notation programs -- with
the the notable exception of SCORE -- to a crashing standstill. Or at
least the last time I bothered to check.)
I've been watching the tuplet discussion with some hesitation. I think
chaning \times to \tuplet is a great idea for the reason that started
the thread: \times is too close to \time. But it seems to me that most
of the suggestions following that initial suggestion begin to confuse
the essential time-scaling function of tuplet brackets (which is their
absolutely core purpose, both in the common practice and now) and
other graphical aspects of the notation such as beaming, grouping (and
even accentuation). Beaming and grouping are terribly important, of
course, but I think that it's best to leave their specification out of
the core tuplet syntax.
More important is to fix the fact that
\times { c8 d e f }
will currently by default print with only a 4 in the tuplet bracket,
which is mathematically wrong; the denominator 5 must appear.
--
Trevor Bača
address@hidden
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |