On 11/13/21, 4:05 PM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
Kieren MacMillan <kie...@kierenmacmillan.info> writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> It doesn't answer the question.
>
> Did my explicit answer in the other email (i.e., “one
> quintuplet-sixteenth-note”) not suffice?
No. You propose replacing (cons 3 4) as a time signature designation
with (cons 3 (ly:make-duration 2)). You have failed to give any
indication of what you want to see (cons 8 20) replaced with.
What if the time signature description were (cons 3 '(2 0 1/1)) or '((rep 3)
(dur_param (2 0 1/1))?
LilyPond does not have something like a 1/20th duration. Regarding
durations, what occurs inside of \tuplet 5/4 and \tuplet 10/8 is
completely indistinguishable: "tupletism" is not a part of durations.
So I repeat: what duration in LilyPond do you want to use to represent
the denominator in 8/20 ? 1/20th here is neither a 5-tuplet nor a
10-tuplet: it represents a fraction of a whole note, not a particular of
several possible note values.
It will likely end up as (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) but that has no
unique printed representation different from (ly:make-duration 4), and
(ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) and (ly:make-duration 4 0 8/10) are
absolutely indistinguishable.
The alist I proposed above would be able to distinguish between 4/5 and 8/10.
Even if I don't have the details right yet, I'm certain that they can be made
right.
Instead of storing the duration, it stores the parameters used to create the
duration.
I don't know if it's a good idea, but it is an idea.
Carl
