Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - was [talk] easy tuplets

[Keith OHara]

Ian Hulin <ian <at> hulin.org.uk> writes:

> Questions:
> 1. Should the new \tuplet [...]
> \tuplet 3/2 {c8 c c} because that reflects better the
> "three notes in the time of two" definition of a triplet.

It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet 
as \tuplet 5/4 {}

We have to invert the tuplet indication when we use \scaleDurations 4/5 {} 
(such as to print tuplets without brackets) but the word 'Duration' helps 
us remember we are specifying the duration of notes, not number of notes.

> 2. Should the \tuplet command attempt to validate the length of the
> incoming music expression?  

The validation is not possible in the general case (until proceeding so far
as to see what time signature is in force when the music is engraved)
For example a 2:3 tuplet in 6/8 time lasts three times the length of a 
quarter note.  

If I make a mistake in the length of music in a tuplet, the mismatch
between printed tuplet bracket and beaming helps me see what happened.
Are there any cases where a warning could give further help?