[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compound time signatures
From: |
Henrik Frisk |
Subject: |
Re: Compound time signatures |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:21:19 +0200 |
Pedro Kröger <address@hidden> wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I think it would also be better if the code just used numbers, and does
> > a (format "~a" NUMBER) or (number->string NUMBER) in the end.
>
> Here it is. I also made Graham's suggestion of switching the numbers,
> like (compound-time grob 3 16 5 8). This is a very cool example (thanks
> Henrik!). I think the ultimate would be to merge the 2 functions and or
> detect the behavior automatically or have it passed as a keyword (like
> compound-time :equal-div)
>
All these suggestions make a lot of sense, and thanks Pedro for implementing it
and thanks for clarifying let* as compared to define. The code looks better! I
will take a look at the autobeaming suggested by Graham. I also thought about
merging the two functions. Rather than using a keyword, if the function is
called with divtwo==0 use equal divisor. In other words: (compound-time grob 3
8 5 8) would result in 3/8+5/8 and (compound-time grob 3 8 5 0) would give
3+5/8 (as I believe it's a matter of taste what way you want to notate it).
Does that make sense? Maybe a keyword makes it simpler to understand?