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

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/08/2012 01:03 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Actually, thinking of it, it would actually be quite simple to calculate the
> displayed fraction with durations from the given durations and the tuplet
> fraction (except that there is no way to distinguish 3:2 and 4:6).
>
> (m*dur1):(n*dur2) = tuplet fraction
>
> can be easily solved as
> m/n = (tuplet fraction)*dur2/dur1
>
> and then reduced to minimal m and n. This could then be displayed as
>    m{dur1}:n{dur2}

Do you need to reduce to minimal m and n?  If you have m and n as given, then 
you can say, "OK, what's the total 'interior' duration of this tuplet divided by 
m, what's the total 'exterior' duration of this tuplet divided by n?"

In both cases that should come out as a "standard" note (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... or 
their dotted equivalents).  If we take the simple case, it should be identical 
for both divisions, and you could throw a warning or error if it's not.

That probably covers most use-cases, since I don't think there's really a lot of 
m{dur1}:n{dur2} about in reality; m{dur1}:{dur2}, maybe.