Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-07 Thread Jonathan Wilkes
> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:33:18 +0200 > From: David Kastrup > To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2 > Message-ID: <87obkfsb69@fencepost.gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Werner LEMBERG writes: > &

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-07 Thread Ian Hulin
Hi Keith, Thanks for doing some prototyping. On 07/10/12 00:24, Keith OHara wrote: > Ian Hulin hulin.org.uk> writes: > >> There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the >> current \times command. >> 1. \tuplet n/m {} > >> This should be relatively easy to implement by addin

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread Keith OHara
Ian Hulin hulin.org.uk> writes: There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {} This should be relatively easy to implement by adding declarations to music-functions-init.ly. It is quite easy, so we can try it out with the atta

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread David Kastrup
Benkő Pál writes: The normal setting is to have four notes in a full 3/4 bar. >>> >>> That would be \times 3/4 rather than \times 6/4, right? >> >> Exactly. > > four quarters, yes; four eigths are 6/4, and that's what I've seen. > > regarding the \tuplet shorthand: I would hate "\tuplet n"

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread Benkő Pál
>>> The normal setting is to have four notes in a full 3/4 bar. >> >> That would be \times 3/4 rather than \times 6/4, right? > > Exactly. four quarters, yes; four eigths are 6/4, and that's what I've seen. regarding the \tuplet shorthand: I would hate "\tuplet n" meaning not "\tuplet n/1" but "

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> The normal setting is to have four notes in a full 3/4 bar. > > That would be \times 3/4 rather than \times 6/4, right? Exactly. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-dev

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread David Kastrup
Werner LEMBERG writes: >> I haven't seen quadruplets in the wild, so that seems like a >> stretch. > > They are quite common in late-romantic piano music. > >> When they occur, it seems audacious to assume they are 6/4. More >> likely than not, I would expect them to be 3/4, like if you have 4 >

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> I haven't seen quadruplets in the wild, so that seems like a > stretch. They are quite common in late-romantic piano music. > When they occur, it seems audacious to assume they are 6/4. More > likely than not, I would expect them to be 3/4, like if you have 4 > notes on a halfmeasure in a 6/8

Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread David Kastrup
Ian Hulin writes: > Thanks to everyone for their feedback so far. > Here is Version 2 of the proposal. > > There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the > current \times command. > > 1. \tuplet n/m {} > % does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time > % co

[proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 2

2012-10-06 Thread Ian Hulin
Thanks to everyone for their feedback so far. Here is Version 2 of the proposal. There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the current \times command. 1. \tuplet n/m {} % does what \times does, but not so easily confused with \time % command. 2. \triplet {} % shorthand fo