Re: "\times" vs "\tuplet" (Was: Constructive Criticism and a Question)

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/1/14, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
> 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 called \t within LilyPond.
>   I definitely do not think that it's a good idea to use such
>   heavily abbreviated command names by default in LilyPond
>   but on the other hand it's an excellent solution for you and
>   many others to add such a customized music function and
>   this specific example should be included as a standard example
>   in the documentation.
>
>    /Mats
Thank you Mats;
it would be indeed heavily abbreviated. But what about the second part
of my suggestion:

> >
> > "If you do not specify a tuplet argument, the argument last entered is
> > used for the next tuplet. The argument of the first tuplet in input
> > defaults to 2/3."
> >
When you use the \times command, most of the time it's to use 2/3, or
to use some argument you've already been using. Is we keep "\times", I
agree to say this command can't go without any argument. But if it
becomes "\tuplet", why couldn't we implemement some default rule ?

Where
\times {f8 g a} ====>doesn't mean anything,

\tuplet {f8 g a} ====>makes sense, doesn't it ?

Best regards,
Valentin Villenave.