Re: Compound time signature style

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On Nov 6, 2014, at 08:46 , David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> I lean towards not consulting the style here.  \compoundMeter to me
>> feels like it should just be numeric.
>> 
>> Of course, to allow for full laziness, it might make sense to interpret
>> 
>>    \compoundMeter #'(4 . 4)
>> 
>> properly as 4/4 then because one can then cheat one's way around writing
>> 
>>    \compoundMeter 4/4
>> 
>> for a numeric time signature.
>
> My gut feeling is that formatting a compound meter should encompass
> formatting a simple meter, and I’ve been trying to understand where to
> draw the line.
>
> If both \compoundMeter #(2 3 8) and \compoundMeter 4/4 could be made
> to work, why bother keeping both \compoundMeter and \time?  Why not
> just let \time do all the work?

Because of

\time #'(2 3 2) #'(8 8)

Is it \time (2 + 3)/2 followed by #'(8 8) or is it \time 8/8 with a beat
structure of 2+3+2 ?

> (I’m not proposing that I combine these commands, but that I leave the
> code in a state from which it is easier to move later.)

The sentiment is good, but it does not fit with the existing forms.

-- 
David Kastrup