Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes: > Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at> writes: >> >>> Hello David, >>> >>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in >>> say piano music where something like this would make sense. >> I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for >> it is more likely to cause confusion than help. > > I disagree.
I think this disagreement may point to a difference with regard to what people want from autobeaming. In my book, the main point of autobeaming is to save the composer from having to bother with beaming. When the composer needs to double-check whether the autobeamer guessed what the composer was aiming for, that goal is not really achieved. For me, it's about saving the author from having to _think_ about beaming, not from having to _write_ beamings. The two-string alternate beamings (this is really just Bach stealing from his string solo pieces, like the prelude from the 3rd violin solo partita he also misappropriated for lute as well as for organ) require enough brain-wracking to come up with the idiomatic skippified urtext beamings that I don't think an automatism for it makes a lot of sense: if you want to save a few characters on entry, a custom music function seems more like the way to go. -- David Kastrup
