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

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> [...]
>> So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
>> intuition, even if they are professional musicians.  In this case, i
>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
>> of 2), because it corresponds to mathematical ratio, and is similar to
>> scaling durations.
>
> +1

-1 from me for this one.  We have \times for that already and I can't
count the times it took me to get the fraction right.  And with the name
"\times" there is at least the mnemonic of the name itself.

When I have a tuplet that is marked 3:2 on the tuplet itself using the
respective tuplet style
\override TupletNumber #'text = #tuplet-number::calc-fraction-text
then it makes no sense at all that I have to enter it as
\tuplet 2/3 { ... } for tuplets that are three to two normal notes.

That's not merely unintuitive, it is (oh goodie, no [talk] tag) plain
absurd.  How can anybody write "\tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2
(for 3 notes in time of 2), because it corresponds to mathematical
ratio," with a straight keyboard?  How does 2/3 correspond to 3 notes in
time of 2?

Let me stomp my feet in defiance and holler.

Ah, that's better.

-- 
David Kastrup