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

[David Kastrup]

Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/05/2012 09:31 AM, Keith OHara wrote:
>> It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet
>> as \tuplet 5/4 {}
>
> Is there any reason why you couldn't write \tuplet 5:4 {} ... ?

Yes.  5/4 is an item that the parser is readily able to recognize as a
function argument.  5:4 isn't.

> Keeps exact match between musical and Lilypond syntax

LilyPond syntax is not an "exact match" in any sense of the word, so
there is nothing particularly important to "keep" here.

> and avoids the potential mental block of having an identical but
> inverted notation for \tuplet and \times.

Just stop using \times and you're all set.

>> 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.
>
> Isn't this a case where you might want \tuplet* and \times* functions
> to put in place the same effect but with no number/ratio/bracket
> printed?  (The function name might need to be different -- I'm just
> using it here by analogy to LaTeX' \section and \section* commands to
> create titles with and without a number.)

Basically, it is \omit TupletNumber, and I don't really know whether
that warrants a separate command.

-- 
David Kastrup