Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes:
>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Dan Eble <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected
>>>> the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable?
>>>> For example,
>>>>
>>>> 2 + 3 2 + 3 4
>>>> ----- + C vs. ----- + -
>>>> 4 4 4
>>>
>>> Undesirable in my book.
>
> It seems everyone agrees for once. :)
>
> One more case: \compoundMeter #’(n d). The current implementation
> prints this as a fraction (n/d), but I plan to change it to honor the
> style unless somebody objects.
I lean towards not consulting the style here. \compoundMeter to me
feels like it should just be numeric.
Of course, to allow for full laziness, it might make sense to interpret
\compoundMeter #'(4 . 4)
properly as 4/4 then because one can then cheat one's way around writing
\compoundMeter 4/4
for a numeric time signature. But that's tangential to the question at
best. I think that \compoundMeter should employ the same way of
creating its markup for all argument kinds. At least by default.
Since I cannot offer a better rationale than "gut feeling" for it, this
likely calls for getting a vote.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
