Benkő Pál <benko....@gmail.com> writes: > 2012/10/9 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> The concept used for printing/grouping tuplets is different than the >> concept used for scaling the time. That's what makes \times such a >> confusing interface. >> >> The pure scaling alone is available as \scaleDurations. I have no beef >> with it using 2/3 as input, and I would have trouble coming up with a >> justification of using 3/2 here, actually seeing little point in doing >> so. One could use something like \compressMusic 3/2 but I don't see >> much of a motivation for that. >> >> But with tuplets, the concept is not really "scale duration by x" but >> rather "n to m notes" including all the necessary visual changes, and >> \times, including its argument style, expresses this concept poorly. >> >> I don't really think that people consider \times and \scaleDurations as >> closely related (and their naming choice is also totally different), so >> I don't think that there will be much of an opportunity confusing the >> behavior of \scaleDurations with \tuplet. > > I, for one, consider \times a visually enhanced variant of \scaleDurations. > regardless how it's written, to me both mean metric change (and metric > is represented poorly in graphic anyway).
Do you feel that the changed fraction gender of \tuplet would be a potential source of confusion for you in the light of your view of \scaleDurations? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
