Joram Berger <joram.no...@gmx.de> writes: > Am 06.11.2012 22:10, schrieb David Kastrup: >> Joram Berger <joram.no...@gmx.de> writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> here is another (probably not so well thought) idea: >>> >>> Issue: \noBeam is a quite long command if used heavily and for the >>> opposite feature [ and ] represent much more convenient solutions. >>> >>> Possible solution: use X or ; (or any other reasonable token as a >>> \noBeam equivalent. >>> >>> Again, this is just an idea, which might be no good one. >> >> You know \autoBeamOff ? >> > > I know that. > > It's no real problem, just wanted to mention it. The idea came up while > making a cheat sheet and realizing, that [ and ] have no equally short > counterpart.
Well, either this is due to phrasing patterns leaving isolated unbeamed notes in which case beaming the patterns is enough, or you actually have situations with several unbeamed notes in a row. That is almost always related to lyrics being reflected in beaming in which case the only safe remedy is manually beaming everything since you can't rely on autobeaming delivering the same results in all eternity and all styles. So the main use case would seem to be a prettier cheat sheet. Wasting symbols or tokens on that seems excessive. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
