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

[Janek Warchoł]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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.

<math joke>
but i didn't consider Durations to be a field.  I was treating it just
like an abelian group, without addition. :P
</math joke>

btw, s2 + s2 = s1*1/2 + s1*1/2 = s1 * (1/2 + 1/2) = s1 as we expect
(note the transition from LilyPondDuration to fractions of whole
notes), and \tuplet 3/2 { s2 } = s1*1/(2 * 3/2) = s1*1/3 = s3
:)

>> 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.

Since we have \scaleDurations, i don't see any compelling reason to
keep \times.  But i don't insist; your suggestion above is ok.

As for Graham's question about \tuplet 3:2, i think that the
difficulties David outlined far outweigh the "user-friendliness"
gained.

cheers,
Janek