Might be an idea, but why should we keep two functions making the same
function?
Does it cost that much on functionality to use two differents syntax in the
same function?
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> Erik Sandberg <mandolaerik <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
parser
>> machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
> proper
>> music function, e.g. as
>> \tuplet 2 3 {...}
>> This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
>>
>> (Hm, my suggestion is not really in line with this discussion; I can
agree
>> that \tuplet 2 3 would be easier to confuse with "3:2" than \tuplet 2/3
is).
>>
>
> I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion started
with my
> discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding syntax
is not
> really in that direction.
>
> That being said, \tuplet 2 3 {...} is rather confusing. I can live with
Another option:
- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
- replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3) ; this can be implemented with
a standard music function
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
