Am 07.11.2012 00:10, schrieb David Kastrup: > 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. >
I agree that it would be a waste of tokens. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
