Re: [talk] easy tuplets

[Ian Hulin]

Hi David,
On 25/09/12 19:11, David Kastrup wrote:
> Ian Hulin <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Advantages:
>> 1. Quicker note entry for triplet quaver and crotchet groups.
>> 2. It is considerably less opaque and cryptic-looking than the other
>> alternative to \times 2/3 { ... }
>> c8*2/3 c c .
>>
>> Drawbacks:
> 
> The main drawback I see is that the specification is "in lowest terms".
> It would be a full nuisance to have tuplets oscillating between 15th,
> 5th, and 3rd tuplets depending on their distribution. 
I think your reservations are good things to bear in mind if the
original proposition were a full-blown replacement or re-write for
\times. As I understand it, it's purely to ease coding of \times 2/3 {
... } i.e. triplets only.
 Sixtuplets are
> plain out, 
This *could* be addressed with \sextuplet (which would substitute in a
#{ \times 4/6 $tuplet-music #} in a music function,
but, as you said
>it is not clear why and when duols will be notated with dots
> and when not, 
>and the subdivision to pick for duols/quartols is totally
> unclear as it competes with normal note lengths.
> 
Again, not relevant to a triplets-only feature, but I take your point.

We'd lose the flexibility of using the 'denominator' of the \times
fraction argument as the tuplet numeral if we tried to do all tuplets
entirely by extending the set of valid durations.  Do you mean this sort
of thing?
\version "2.17.3"
\relative c' {
  \time 6/8
  c8 c c c c c |
  \times 3/2 { c8 c c c } |
  c8. c c c   |
  \times 6/4 { c8 c c c } |
  c2. \bar "|."
}

Cheers,

Ian

testduplets.png
Description: PNG image