Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> There is no either of those.  They are identical.  You cannot
>> distinguish a 5-tuplet from a 10-tuplet in that representation.
>
> Please explain why I need to, specifically in the context of a
> note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me
> that I need to.
>
>> The problem is that there is no
>> unique representation as a LilyPond duration for print forms
>> representing 1/20th of a whole note
>
> Please explain why there needs to be, specifically in the context of a
> note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me
> that there needs to be.
>
>> The problem is that handwaving looks great in discussions but does not
>> deliver a definition useful for implementation.
>
> Please explain why you think me saying I’ll accept (ly:make-duration 4
> 0 4/5) as the input, specifically in the context of a note-denominator
> time signature, is “handwaving” — because it’s not at all clear to me
> how that’s true.

There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the
denominator for that time signature representation.  That makes that
representation unable to adequately reflect existing music while at the
same time being considerably more complex.  You consider both the added
complexity as well as ditching the ability of others to represent
_their_ music an adequate sacrifice for gaining -- what exactly?

-- 
David Kastrup