Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads <at> gmail.com)

[Keith OHara]

Dan Eble <dan <at> faithful.be> writes:

> On Nov 1, 2014, at 18:48 , Noeck <noeck.marburg <at> gmx.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >> * leave the default style alone
> >> * add to the C style: 4/2 -> CC, 2/1 -> cut-CC
> >> 
> >> This would end the equivalence of default and C styles.  
> >> Does that seem like a bad idea to any seasoned
> >> Lilypond developers?  

This is a bad idea.

The time required for a user to find and understand the single-C style 
is greater than the time to find an example of a custom time signature
made using markup on the LSR.
Then the user can further customize the markup, or use the concept
elsewhere.

Any added complexity has some risk of surprising side-effects
(e.g. https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1926 )

Computers are helpful when they help us follow a pattern, as the
single-digit style does, or a solid convention like the default style.
Computers are frustrating when we need to figure out what they
are doing.

> > style
> > default        c    ¢   2/4  2/1  4/2  8/4  3/4  6/8
> > C              c    ¢   2/4  ¢¢   cc   8/4  3/4  6/8     <---
> > single-C       c    ¢   [¢]   ¢    c   8/4  3/4  6/8     <---
> > numbered      4/4  2/2  2/4  2/1  4/2  8/4  3/4  6/8
> > single-digit   4    2    2    2    4    8    3    6

If I needed to set the Schubert Op90n3, which looks like 4/2 to me,
I might notice a single-C style in the manual, figure out how to use
it, wonder why the c's are not barred where Schubert has them barred,
look into the code, be confused, decide to use markup like I should
have in the first place.

The single-C style is borderline useful as a style, double-c is not.

The current code has some logic to choose a glyph timesig.C34 if we 
set style=C in 3/4 time, but it seems that code is disabled by complex
logic.  Cleaning that up, as part of moving toward scheme markup,
would be nice.