Updates:
Status: Verified
Comment #13 on issue 76 by colinpkc...@gmail.com: beams should not collide
with accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
Verified with 2.13.57
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gn
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #12 on issue 76 by mts...@gmail.com: beams should not collide with
accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
Fixed with the newest beam-collision-engraver
Attachments:
foo.png 1.4 KB
___
Comment #11 on issue 76 by pkx1...@gmail.com: beams should not collide with
accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
an @knownissue has been added at the behest of mike S where use a similar
example. in this case manual beaming stops the collisions.
http://git.sav
Comment #10 on issue 76 by philehol...@googlemail.com: beams should not
collide with accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
The collision still occurs using 2.13.55, which fixes issue 37.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bu
Comment #9 on issue 76 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: beams should not collide
with accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
Work on issue 37 might resolve this issue as well, at least for manual
beams.
___
bug-lilypond mailin
Comment #8 on issue 76 by brownian.box: beams should not collide with
accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
oops, png attached
Attachments:
beam-64-32--acc.png 2.9 KB
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this i
Updates:
Owner: ---
Comment #7 on issue 76 by brownian.box: beams should not collide with
accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
With 2.13.13 64ths behave better that 32ths (sometimes?..):
\version "2.13.13"
\relative c' {
g32[ ees']
g,64[ ees'!]
}
\p
Issue 76: beams should not collide with accidentals
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=76
Comment #6 by v.villenave:
Another example:
\version "2.11.63"
\relative c' {
f,16 d' b' gis'
}
I'll keep a low priority but IMHO this may qualify as a collision.
Attachments:
co
