Re: [proposal] easy triplets and tuplets - Draft 3

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On 2012-10-07 23:38, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 10/07/2012 11:29 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=482
> > http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=817
> >
> > I implemented those functions for MusicXML import. Note, however, that
> > lilypond
> > does not automatically use those, you have to manually set them as
> > shown in the
> > snippets.
>
> Do I understand right that these functions are entirely manual overrides
> -- that they specify what to print (either a note-value, or the entire
> ratio) without reference to the actual tuplet underneath?

No, the formatter functions that I wrote use the tuplet fraction. The 
override does not contain the values of the tuplet fraction, just the 
note types. E.g.

  \once \override TupletNumber #'text =
    #(tuplet-number::append-note-wrapper
      tuplet-number::calc-denominator-text "4")
  \times 2/3  { c8 c8 c8 c8 c8 c8 }

This will print 3{4}, where the 3 comes from the tuplet fraction and 
only the base note duration is set in the override.

Or the more general case:

  \once \override TupletNumber #'text =
    #(tuplet-number::fraction-with-notes "4." "8")
  \times 2/3  { c4. c4. c4. c4. }

This will print a tuplet number
  3{4.}:2{8}
where the 3 and the 2 comes from the \times command and only the note 
durations are specified in the override. There is, however, no check 
whether the fraction with the durations makes sense and matches the real 
tuplet (in most cases, it will not).

There are, however, also formatter functions that override also the 
tuplet fraction.

> This is what I'm getting at, you see -- I'd like to see a \tuplet
> command that takes the information I've given about the tuplet ratio and
> units and translates that _automatically_ into the correct notation.

I don't think that fully automatic tuplet notation will work in all cases.
However, there is certainly enough to think about a more general tuplet 
command in lilypond. The formatting functions are already there, what's 
missing is the input syntax.

> I'm not trying to dismiss your work, it's just that I'm leery of purely
> manual notational overrides because there's always a risk of screwing
> things up if you later revise the piece and forget to also revise the
> override (there's a similar problem IIRC with the current solution to
> customized subsidiary beam-breaking).

It's not purely manual overrides... (But still enough rope to hang 
yourself in the way you describe).

Cheers,
Reinhold


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, address@hidden, http://www.kainhofer.com
 * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
 * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
 * Edition Kainhofer, Music Publisher, http://www.edition-kainhofer.com