On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've always found that beams with three or more beams look too tight,
> but now reading Gould, p. 19 confirms that, and I consider this a
> type-ugly bug:
Thanks, Urs. This has been submitted as Issue #4765 :
https://sourceforge.net
> However, inferring from what she says about *two* beams and that a
> third beam should be attached to the outside one would have to say
> the "correct" distance would be to have the innermost beam *center*
> on the line. That is: with the note a' the inner beam should center
> around the topmos
Am 01.02.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> Attached you'll find examples for three and four beams, and I expect
>> this to continue with more beams. I have colored the ones too close
>> in red and adjusted them (blue) to Gould's minimum distance.
> Thanks for your analysis, to which I agr
> Attached you'll find examples for three and four beams, and I expect
> this to continue with more beams. I have colored the ones too close
> in red and adjusted them (blue) to Gould's minimum distance.
Thanks for your analysis, to which I agree in general. However, I
consider some of your bea
Hi all,
I've always found that beams with three or more beams look too tight,
but now reading Gould, p. 19 confirms that, and I consider this a
type-ugly bug:
According to Gould outer beams starting with the third should move away
from the notehead, and "beams should never be closer to the notehe
Hi all,
I've always found that beams with three or more beams look too tight,
but now reading Gould, p. 19 confirms that, and I consider this a
type-ugly bug:
According to Gould outer beams starting with the third should move away
from the notehead, and "beams should never be closer to the notehe
