Re: Request for comments: Redesign of TimeSignature

[Juergen Reuter]

On 23 May 2002, Laura Conrad wrote:
> ...
> If anyone wants to implement maxima, I think it looks like a longa
> with the notehead about twice as wide.

This has already been for quite a long time in lily. ;-)
Just say something like: c\maxima

> Speaking of which, if you are going to support mensural polyphony, one
> thing that should change is the way barlines propagate between staves.
> The fact that there's a barline in the top staff shouldn't necessarily
> imply a barline in the others.
> This would also make proofreading
> easier.

This should be possible by adding/removing various engravers from/to
various contexts.  I will think about it.

>     >> \time [2+2+3]/8
>     >>
>     >> By the way, the "[" might clash with beams, as in:
>     >>
>     >> \notes { \time 3 [f4 a c] }
>
>     Han-Wen> \time 3 is not valid syntax. I propose that we keep it that way. 
> If it
>     Han-Wen> [ ] is in between \time and / , then there will be no clash.
>
> This is a problem for transcribing music where the composer wrote "3"
> as the time signature, though.  The transcriber soesn't always know
> what unit the composer was thinking in 3 of.  And I always have trouble
> remembering which denominator will give me a circle.
>

I thought, by default, semibrevis is always the unit in mensural notation,
unless you say "alla breve" (slashed circle/semicircle), in which case
brevis is the unit.  But maybe I am wrong?  In contemporary notation, the
unit is by default the quarternote, unless you say "alla breve", in which
case the half note is the unit.  This difference between mensural notation
and contemporary notation is expressed by the transcription-shift value in
my proposal.

> Or maybe:
>
>         C 3/4
>

The problem is that "C" is ambigous unless you explicitly add the unit
(which, for contemporary notation, should default to quarter notes).

Greetings,
Juergen