Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
> wow, many more emails arrived! Let me send my thoughts written in the
> meantime, and go back offline for a few hours.
>
> i've found a reason why i could support "reversed" tuplet ratio: if we
> decide to allow arbitrary integer durations (so that a3 would mean a
> third of the whole note), it would make more sense to have { a3 b6 }
> equivalent to \tuplet 3/2 { a2 b4 } rather than have it equivalent to
> \tuplet 2/3 { a2 b4 }. In other words, in LilyPond we express
> duration using the /denominator/ of the fraction, so it makes sense to
> multiply duration 2 (half note) by 3/2 to get duration 3 (a triplet).
> Do you see what i mean?
With the same kind of logic, s2 + s2 should be s4, so I hope this reason
will not remain the only one you can find.
> However, if we reverse the argument in \tuplet, we definitely should
> deprecate \times. Having both \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3/2 for
> specifying triplets would be *very* confusing.
I agree that using them interchangeably in the documentation would not
be helpful. I see no reason to _remove_ \times, however. It would
likely be more than enough to have its documentation string point out
the existence of \tuplet. Using a convert-ly rule for a blanket
conversion \times->\tuplet would be something I would consider
appropriate.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
