Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 12/17/09 9:53 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Of course, the results were quite different from what I half expected >> to see. > > Yes. That difference is due to a pre-existing bug in the code. The > consider_end check used the current duration, not the shortest > duration in the beam.
That's one of the reasons why I dislike multiple responsible code paths for the same task. They make it easier for bugs to stay in the dark. "No bugs in my kitchen." "Did you check the crawlway?". > That bug has now been fixed, and your example now beams the whole > measure (as expected). Patch update soon to arrive. Well, at least that places my contribution above the level of mere noise. For now. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
