2016-03-10 20:40 GMT+01:00 tisimst <tisimst.lilyp...@gmail.com>:
> Pierre,
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Schneidy [via Lilypond] <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> A tiny little question:
>>
>> \version "2.19.37"
>>
>> \markup {
>> Let's try something simple:
>> \note #"8" #UP + \note #"8" #UP =
>> \combine
>> \combine
>> \note-by-number #2 #0 #UP
>>
>> %\override #'(line-join-style . bevel) \path #.4 #'((moveto 1.18 3)
>> (lineto 4.34 3)(closepath))
>> %% how about using 'beam instead ?
>> \translate #'(1.25 . 2.8)\beam #3 #0 #.5
>>
>> \concat {
>> \hspace #3
>> \note-by-number #2 #0 #UP
>> }
>> . Yikes! Not so easy by hand.
>> }
>
>
> I get what you're saying. The point though is that you're going to need to
> do some kind of manual placement of lines/beams/dots/numbers/whatever (i.e.,
> via \translate #'(...), etc.) for each part of the music. That's the beauty
> of that function, since it takes care of all that automatically! That's all
> the example was meant to show. (I didn't create the "before" part of the
> example, btw. Not that it matters.)
You want to show the advantage of your approach compared with the
_best_ what LilyPond could do before not compared to some worse
coding.
Hence, I'd change the "before" to using \beam.
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
