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

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> wow, many more emails arrived!  Let me send my thoughts written in the
> meantime, and go back offline for a few hours.
>
> i've found a reason why i could support "reversed" tuplet ratio: if we
> decide to allow arbitrary integer durations (so that a3 would mean a
> third of the whole note), it would make more sense to have { a3 b6 }
> equivalent to \tuplet 3/2 { a2 b4 } rather than have it equivalent to
> \tuplet 2/3 { a2 b4 }.  In other words, in LilyPond we express
> duration using the /denominator/ of the fraction, so it makes sense to
> multiply duration 2 (half note) by 3/2 to get duration 3 (a triplet).
> Do you see what i mean?

With the same kind of logic, s2 + s2 should be s4, so I hope this reason
will not remain the only one you can find.

> However, if we reverse the argument in \tuplet, we definitely should
> deprecate \times.  Having both \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3/2 for
> specifying triplets would be *very* confusing.

I agree that using them interchangeably in the documentation would not
be helpful.  I see no reason to _remove_ \times, however.  It would
likely be more than enough to have its documentation string point out
the existence of \tuplet.  Using a convert-ly rule for a blanket
conversion \times->\tuplet would be something I would consider
appropriate.

-- 
David Kastrup