On Feb 2, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Graham Percival
> <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
>
>> Not quite on this list, but I would like to draw people's attention to:
>> some kind of beaming work
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045
>>
>> I don't know how this interacts (if at all) with Han-Wen's recent work
>> on beams. There is nothing obviously wrong with Mike's patch.
>
> As I discussed on-list, I think Mike's patch still is not the right
> way to go, and my patch series is for offering an alternative.
>
Hey all,
The most recent patch set only has a single pass through beam quanting. I
don't believe it adds significant overhead to a score's compile time, although
I'd need someone to do some benchmarking to verify that.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045
Han-Wen: could you summarize again your main objections to this approach? I
want to make sure it's going in the right direction, and if it's not, I can
certainly rebase off of your most recent patch and work from there. I know
that my code is less compact than what you came up with, but I couldn't figure
out a way to pair it down and still deal with all of the eventualities that
precipitate from the various potential beam collisions that arise in a score.
In any event, given the new beam scoring code, I'm going to be rewriting chunks
of this patch. Keep your eyes to the skies for a new patch set in 24ish
hours...
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
