Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes:
> On 11/13/21, 1:09 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Yes. The numerical representation of traditional time signatures is a
> pair of integers. But the "numerator" can be any integer. While the
> "denominator" can also be any integer, it doesn't really represent an
> integer. It represents a duration; a fraction of a whole note.
A time signature is written with numbers, not durations.
> > 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_?
>
> I can't enter \time 3/2., even though 2. is a valid duration.
3
But 2. is not a valid time signature.
> > 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.
>
> If the entry is a duration,
But it isn't and has never been.
> and timeSignatureFraction is a pair consisting of an integer and
> duration, then it's trivial to get the current output by using
> ly:duration->string for the bottom number on the time signature, and
> it's also trivial to get a note representing the duration as the
> bottom element of the time signature.
There is
/*
Todo: should make typecheck?
OTOH, Tristan Keuris writes 8/20 in his Intermezzi.
*/
in lily/time-signature-engraver.cc
Your refactoring desire does not seem to leave room for that.
--
David Kastrup
