[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
> Since the duration would be the second of three arguments, it could not be
> optional, but that's not a problem.
>
> I think (?) this would have the side effect that \tuplet 3:2 2. would
> be the same as \tuplet 6:4 2. or \tuplet 9:6 2., which would mean
> that it would always be OK (even if not required) to express the ratio
> in reduced form (3:2 here).
1. We want to cut back on optional constructs
2. \tuplet 6:4 2. { .. } is a lot of numbers. Not very readable IMO.
--
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
