Re: Missing number in broken triplet

[Hans Aberg]

I don't think so:

In this new case, the triplets are treated as merely being time  
values (2/3 notes), which do not need to fill up the whole triplet  
value. It is thus possible to only have one 2/3 note standing alone,  
completed by additional 2/3 notes in other positions. Then one expect  
the triplet number be written over the single note, in the same style  
as on groups of triplets.

  Hans Åberg


On 29 Nov 2007, at 08:03, Graham Percival wrote:

> Isn't this another case of
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=405&q=tuplet
>
> (although you haven't used #'brackt-visibility here, adding it  
> doens't help)
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>
> Hans Aberg wrote:
> > I report this problem just for completeness. If one breaks up a  
> > triple into to two parts, as in the following example, the triplet  
> > number on the single note does not show. The code is
> > {
> >   \time 2/8
> >   \times 2/3 { e16 f16 } g8 \times 2/3 { a16 } |
> > }
> > It looks as in the attached GIF. (There is a beaming problem too,  
> > but this has been reported in other bug reports.)
> > If one makes sure each broken triplet has more than one note, then  
> > the triplet numbers do show. E.g.,
> > {
> >   \time 4/8
> >   \times 2/3 { e16 f16 } g8 \times 2/3 { a16 b16 } c8 \times 2/3  
> > { d16 e16 } |
> > }
> >   Hans Åberg
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> > _______________________________________________
> > bug-lilypond mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond