Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: >> >> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM >> >> > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@googlemail.com> writes: >> > >> >>> In this case, i >> >>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time >> >>> of 2), because it corresponds to mathematical ratio, and is similar to >> >>> scaling durations. >> > >> > -1 from me for this one. We have \times for that already and I can't >> > count the times it took me to get the fraction right. And with the name >> > "\times" there is at least the mnemonic of the name itself. >> >> Absolutely! Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason >> for inventing it, IIRC. > > Woah, really? I thought the whole point was to avoid the > confusion between \time and \times.
Both "the whole point" impressions are mistaken if you look at the original proposal in <URL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/50803>. It was one, deliberately separate point to discuss. It was discussed, and a consensus was reached. > I think it would be extremely confusing for "\tuplet x/y" to mean the > same thing as "\times y/x". Only if both are intended to be used interchangeably. But use of \times would be discouraged because of _both_ "whole points". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
