On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes. What I really would like to write is
> > >
> > > c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16[] } c8
> > >
> > > and I just demonstrated a case where my proposed notation would be
> > > helpful.
>
> > My point is that is it not helpful in this case because it produces
> > a notation which is IMO harder to read than the two variations that
> > I gave. Maybe you can give an example where \noBeam makes something
> > easier to read instead of harder.
>
> First of all, I'm quite conservative and I really dislike such
> beamlets. Additionally, all music before, say, 1930, doesn't use
> beamlets at all, so you need a means to produce flagged notes.
>
Hi Werner, Hi everyone,
Yikes!
I guess I'm the opposite of whatever notationally conservative would be: I
*need* beamlets available to me in my scores, and have used them extensively
(and successfully) in LilyPond. And, AFAICT, changing the meaning of c[ ]
would eliminate any ability for me to get the beamlets where I need them.
Please don't change c[ ]!
(Also, my apologies for being more than a month behind on the list; life
intervenes ...)
--
Trevor Bača
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
