Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[stk]

> I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
> with \time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.

Opinion --

(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the bare
argument "3":  \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of course, I'm a
dodo, but I predict that Mats & Erik & several others would wind up
spending a lot of time explaining what "\times 7" (or "\tuplet 7") means.

(2) \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3:2 don't mean the same thing:
         \times 2/3 {c8 d e d e f}
makes sense, but I don't think that
         \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
does.  The least messy option would be the status quo.  The keyword
\times is perfectly clear.  You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword
\tuplet with the syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes}, but then
when the \tuplet expression is parsed, checks should be performed that
would accept
         \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e}
and probably accept
         \tuplet 3:2 {g4 b8}
but would reject
         \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
You would be opening up a big can of worms by adding a *genuine*
"\tuplet" construct.

-- Tom