Re: Compound time signature style

[Hans Aberg]

> On 7 Nov 2014, at 00:37, Dan Eble <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> 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?

It is normal to write a different time signature than the meter. For example, 
\compoundMeter #(3 2 2 8) might have time signature \time 7/8.

I write for example
  \time 11/16
  \set beatStructure = #'(4 3 4)

It would nice to have \compoundMeter #((2 2) 3 (2 2) 16), indicating subbeaming 
(2 2) for the 4s, while still writing \time 11/16 (typical for notating a 
kopanitsa).