On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:41:50 -0800, wrote:
For you, a triplet consists of three notes. For me, a triplet consists
of a single note, three of which make up a triplet group.
The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet oscillates
between both uses, mathematically of course a triple
On 2013/01/30 11:32:37, dak wrote:
On 2013/01/30 10:41:50, dak wrote:
> We have a fundamental difference in our terminology.
>
> For you, a triplet consists of three notes. For me, a triplet
consists of a
> single note, three of which make up a triplet group.
I've mostly skirted the issue i
On 2013/01/30 10:41:50, dak wrote:
We have a fundamental difference in our terminology.
For you, a triplet consists of three notes. For me, a triplet
consists of a
single note, three of which make up a triplet group.
I've mostly skirted the issue in the current wording.
https://coderevie
2013/1/30 :
> On 2013/01/29 17:25:19, Keith wrote:
>
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7220052/diff/4001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode506
>>
>> Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:506: ratio of the number
>
> of notes
>>
>> to play in relation to the nominal
>> "..
On 2013/01/29 17:25:19, Keith wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/7220052/diff/4001/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode506
Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:506: ratio of the number
of notes
to play in relation to the nominal
"... The fraction is the number of no
On 2013/01/29 17:25:19, Keith wrote:
I tried to write simpler texts, below. If you are dissatisfied you >
can use them as inspiration.
I like this evident wording.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7220052/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-de
If you consider that description better than the original,
you might want to look over the entries in learning and
notation. The original entries for \times very much
focused on explaining things in a way and order that
makes the "fraction order" choice appear less strange.
Those looked fine.
I
Reviewers: Keith,
Message:
On 2013/01/29 04:47:13, Keith wrote:
Looks great.
You can simplify the version in changes. The two tuplets sharing
share one beam
catches the eye, but that was not the change.
Right. This was a cut&paste job from the notation manual where the
intent was to _al
Looks great.
You can simplify the version in changes. The two tuplets sharing share
one beam catches the eye, but that was not the change. I wrote a
version below imagining a reader who has forgotten that the fraction in
\times is backwards, and didn't yet notice that LilyPond commands can
have
