Hans Aberg wrote: > On 28 Feb 2008, at 17:32, Joseph Wakeling wrote: > >> I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a >> generally-set preference, along the lines of "\set Staff.timeSignature >> #'style = note" (that's pseudo code, obviously:-), and also how complex >> the resulting note could be: for example, imagine a time signature along >> the lines of (again, in pseudo-notation), >> >> \time 3/(4.~ 4) >> >> (Basically this is a rather complicated way of writing a 15/8 time >> signature subdivided into 3 beats of 5 eighth notes.) > > I don't understand this notation; please explain your idea.
The idea for what would _appear_ is a 3 over a dotted quarter note tied to a quarter note (hence the notation, which as I said, is pseudo-code). That is, a 3 over a note lasting 5 eighths. It's not something particularly urgent for me to be able to do, but seems like a good example of a weird-but-logical use of the number-over-note time signature notation. >> I don't see any reason _in principle_ why it should be impossible to >> deal with such a time signature, as after all Lilypond is already >> perfectly capable of dealing with weird-but-logical time signatures like >> 7/10. > > We discussed this in the bug list - a typo in Snippets. YOu can see > there how it is possible to something in that way. > > The problem is if one would want to fine tune it. For example, the > Bulgarian kopanitsa 11/16 may be described as 4+3+4 where 4 = 2+2. So > one may want to typeset the 4 as one group or one group where the > secondary beams are grouped as 2+2. Then it is difficult to get the > stems in say a 1+1+2 pattern to come out right. Have you got a link to this discussion? It sounds interesting. I'd like to understand more of what has been discussed before commenting on the problem you raise. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
