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

[David Kastrup]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

>>> It is a matter of fact that triplets are either marked with a
>>> single digit, or with a ratio like `4:3'.  I think it is not too
>>> far stretched to expect that lilypond should follow such
>>> conventions even in the input.
>> 
>> I disagree.  [...]
>
> Good arguments, David!
>
>> Now where is the point in making a single command deviate from that
>> convention, data structure, input syntax and general support inside
>> of LilyPond?  How does this make LilyPond easier to comprehend?
>
> Playing the advocatus diaboli: I wouldn't mind if we say
>
>   \time 3:4
>
> At least in Germany and Austria a division gets indicated by `3:4' or
> `3/4'.  But of course `:' is already in use for tremolos...

That's the point.  The current design follows choices taken a long time
ago.  If the choices would have been different, we might have ended up
with 3:4.  I am not opposed to 3:4 based on its visual aesthetics viewed
in isolation, whether we are talking about \time or \tuplet.  And 3:4
would have less potential for confusion with #3/4 (not a number pair or
fraction, but rather a rational number properly embedded into Guile's
numeric stack).

But in the design of LilyPond, a number of design decisions have been
taken forming the language, and side-stepping this design is expensive.
It would probably be less annoying for everybody if I stated flatly
"this is impossible" in such cases.  But of course, one can always bolt
on a few exceptions and overrides before things start really breaking
apart.

So I start panicking whenever people make really expensive proposals.
Part of the saving grace is, of course, that somebody has to actually
implement things.  But it is not rare that a 90% solution can be hacked
up pretty fast, and then the pressure mounts: "somebody else did 90% of
the work, why do you refuse to fill in the missing 10% if you are
convinced that there is something missing?  And don't you dare break any
of the 90% with unrelated work."

And it is not that this sort of thing does not happen.

-- 
David Kastrup