Re: [talk] easy tuplets

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> Currently, durations are limited to powers of 2 (plus dots).
> Making a triplet involves the wordy \times x/y { ... } or a *x/y
> scaling factor.  We could avoid this (in common cases) by allowing
> arbitrary integer durations.
>
>   c4 e \times 2/3 { c4 e g }
> into:
>   c4 e c6 e g
>
> The general rule is that the duration x is (whole note)/x.  So in
> addition to the current
>   1 2 4 8
> we have
>   3 => \times 2/3 { c2 }    (whole note divided by 3)
>   6 => \times 2/3 { c4 }    (whole note divided by 6)
> ... etc.
>
> These notes can be grouped together like we do for beaming, and
> produce tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming rules.

I don't think we have "tuplet brackets according to tuplet-beaming
rules".

Take a look at

\times 2/3 { c8 c c c c c c c c c c c 
             c8 c c c c c c c c c c c }

> I know that this idea has been floated at least twice in the past
> ten years, but since this is only a [talk] idea, I'm not going to
> bother looking up those discussions in the archives.  Remember
> that you're not allowed to call me a lazy idiot for not looking up
> those discussions because this isn't a formal proposal.  This
> email thread should have "the casual atmosphere of a friendly
> discussion at a pub or coffee house", and that nobody "will
> complain about technically infeasible ideas, wasting developer’s
> time, having to defend the parser, or anything like that".

Would you be rather thinking of a Scottish or a Canadian pub here?

-- 
David Kastrup