Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > 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.
No it wouldn't. Scheme does not distinguish 4/5 and 8/10 . And neither does the composer using a time signature of 8/20 whether this suits your theories about what time signatures "really" are or not. 8/20 conveys more information than a proper fraction (which would be 2/5) but less than 8 times a particular note duration expressed as a specific kind of tuplet. It's 8 times 1/20 without detailing how that 1/20 is constituted. > I don't know if it's a good idea, but it is an idea. -- David Kastrup
