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

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> 
>> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
>> 
>> > Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>> > 
>> >>> 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 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.
>> 
>> Absolutely!  Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason
>> for inventing it, IIRC.
>
> Woah, really?  I thought the whole point was to avoid the
> confusion between \time and \times.

Both "the whole point" impressions are mistaken if you look at the
original proposal in
<URL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/50803>.
It was one, deliberately separate point to discuss.  It was discussed,
and a consensus was reached.

> I think it would be extremely confusing for "\tuplet x/y" to mean the
> same thing as "\times y/x".

Only if both are intended to be used interchangeably.  But use of \times
would be discouraged because of _both_ "whole points".

-- 
David Kastrup