On 2013/01/12 16:16:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
I prefer \tupletSpan \default too, but I don't think we should
advise users not to use \tupletSpan.
The disadvantage of \tupletSpan is that it makes a non-local change.
That's not copy&paste friendly and leads to non-self-contained code
pieces.
That would be justified only
if we intend to deprecate it, and there is no suggestion of that.
If many tuplets are to be the same length the use of \tupletSpan
is preferable to entering multiple identical optional durations.
Well, entering a duration is an easy feat. There is also the
consideration that if you are having nested \tuplet commands, specifying
\tupletSpan becomes non-trivial as it has to be specified as "absolute"
timing whereas the duration given to the \tuplet argument is scaled
together with its contents (to facilitate its scaling under
music_compress, I had to use "duration" as the name of the respective
music property). So
\tupletSpan 4 \tuplet 3/2 { c4 c c c c c c c c c c c }
does not yield anything useful when placed inside of
\tuplet 4/3
whereas
\tuplet 3/2 4 { c4 c c c c c c c c c c c }
works as expected.
So \tupletSpan is only a minor help, and it does not really save
significant typing, either.
The user-level documentation for this has not even been started, but I
would propose not putting too much stress on \tupletSpan. The optional
argument just works more straightforwardly.
Otherwise LGTM.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7094044/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
