> I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
> with \time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Opinion --
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the bare
argument "3": \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of course, I'm a
dodo, but I predict that Mats & Erik & several others would wind up
spending a lot of time explaining what "\times 7" (or "\tuplet 7") means.
(2) \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3:2 don't mean the same thing:
\times 2/3 {c8 d e d e f}
makes sense, but I don't think that
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
does. The least messy option would be the status quo. The keyword
\times is perfectly clear. You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword
\tuplet with the syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes}, but then
when the \tuplet expression is parsed, checks should be performed that
would accept
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e}
and probably accept
\tuplet 3:2 {g4 b8}
but would reject
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
You would be opening up a big can of worms by adding a *genuine*
"\tuplet" construct.
-- Tom
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
