Re: preliminary GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 01:27:23PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 172 ~ 188 is an abomination anyway.  It would be reasonably
>> straightforward to accept a pair here, like #(172 . 188) or
>> 172/188 which is equivalent.
>
> Straightforward from a programming perspective, but as far as
> printed music is concerned, a tempo range doesn't look anything
> like 172/188.

It doesn't look like 172 ~ 188 either.

> Hmm, I wonder if we could steal a page from LaTeX and use
>   172 -- 188
> to indicate a range?  of course then we might run into problems
> with people writing
>   172 - 188
> so it's not a foolproof solution.

I don't think it makes sense to go overboard on syntax just because of
\tempo.  Just split this into two commands, one for the markup (in which
case the musician can use any range indication he likes or text like
"Allegro") and one for setting the actual speed (where a range is not
needed anyway).

-- 
David Kastrup