On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> wrote:
> "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote in message > news:20110122145258.GA17491@futoi... > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 01:24:26PM +0000, James Lowe wrote: >> >>> There seems to be an inconsistency with setting horizontal beams. >>> \override Beam #'damping = #+inf.0 >>> >> >> IIRC, this is a hack rather than an "officially supported" thing >> (whatever that might mean). >> >> We have a snippet where we state that >>> >> >> Correction: somebody posted a snippet in which they *claimed* >> that: >> >> Should generate horizontal beams in all cases. >>> >> >> and no developer has said "that snippet is obviously wrong" (quite >> possibly because nobody's looked at it) >> >> We simply do not have the resources to ensure quality/truth in >> snippets, either in LSR itself, or even in the subset that we >> include in our docs. >> >> >> That said, I agree that it would be useful to be able to get >> horizontal beams. The name might be \beamHorizontal, but that's a >> useless detail that's pointless to quibble about. The important >> thing is adding this new feature to the beaming code. >> >> Bug squad: I suggest Enhancement-Low-Frog. Frog ETA: 10 hours. >> >> Cheers, >> - Graham >> > > I'd suggest the snippet is worth sorting out, too. What do you reckon - > adding the commands > > \override Beam #'details #'damping-direction-penalty = #0 > \override Beam #'details #'round-to-zero-slope = #0 > > to the existing snippet, or a new one pointed to by the old one, that says > "if \override Beam #'damping = #+inf.0 doesn't do what you want, add the > other commands too, as shown here"? > > Submitted as issue 1493 : http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1493 Pondly, Ralph _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
