Re: timing (the 1.7 approach)

[Rune Zedeler]

Han-Wen wrote:

> (btw, I do like the idea of a
>
>       c24 c12
>
> syntax, it's nice & consistent. However, I doubt that it would become
> very popular).

Well, yes, this syntax was the whole point. I cannot really see how to 
implement it when having only powers of two (and a multiplier)... Should 
c9 translate into c8*8/9 or c4*4/9 ?
My point is that the multiply currently is used to "fake" a duration - 
i.e. the engravers typesets the note as if the multiplyer is not there 
(except for the mm-rests - but this I concider an exception) but the 
timing acts like if it IS there. I think that this is a very handy 
possibility which I would NOT like to remove - by i.e. letting c4*6/4 
result in a triplet automatically being generatied.

The mensural stuff would be solved by allowing this syntax because one 
could simply enter the "real" duration of a note and then let the 
engraver about to decide how to typeset it.

I don't know how much it would be used. I know that I would use it all 
the time, but perhaps my mind is more mathematically oriented than the 
mind of an average lilypond-user... I don't know...


-Rune