Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > I have not been a strong contributor to this thread. And I have not > been a strong advocate for the time signatures with a notehead in the > denominator. I think all of those time signatures can be expressed > just as well as a compound meter. > > HOWEVER, > > In looking at this, is seems the lexer (and the propery > timeSignatureFraction) are not semantically correct. > > Although the time signature looks like a fraction, it is not. A > fraction has numbers in the denominator and the numerator (and > strictly speaking, a fraction properly has integers in the numerator > and denominator -- if they are not integers, it's a quotient, not a > fraction, IIUC). And the time signature has an integer in the > "numerator" and a duration in the "denominator".
I don't get your point. Are you objecting to the use of the word "fraction" or what is your complaint? The representation is a pair of integers, not a rational number, so \time 4/4 and \time 2/2 are different things. > I'm not sure it is worth the work to get semantically correct, but > semantically, \time 4/4 should not be a fraction of two integers; it > should be a pair of a count and a duration. > > And if we had semantically correct time signature entry, Here you are talking about the _entry_ rather than the names used internally. So what is your beef with the _entry_? > Kieren's wish for a different display for the duration would be > relatively straightforward, Here you make a statement that somehow your objection to entry or internal namings, once recognised, magically makes other possibilities appear. I don't see it. > Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not sure that it's worth changing the > internals since they work so well for the lilypond core functionality > (traditional western music), but I noticed the semantic error as I > read this thread. What do you want to change? Entry or internals? And how so? -- David Kastrup
