On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:54 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
>> Quick comment: I'd say that timestep-count as a property is not
>> necessary. The 'width' of an autobeam could also be garnered by
>> looking at its bounds, eg beam->get_bound(LEFT)-> get_column(). From
>> the column you could eit
On Mar 26, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, wrote:
>> Reviewers: ,
>>
>> Message:
>> I think this is a better approach to getting beam collision resolution
>> out of auto-beams.
>
> Quick comment: I'd say that timestep-count as a property is not
> ne
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:28 PM, wrote:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Message:
> I think this is a better approach to getting beam collision resolution
> out of auto-beams.
Quick comment: I'd say that timestep-count as a property is not
necessary. The 'width' of an autobeam could also be garnered by
looki
Reviewers: ,
Message:
I think this is a better approach to getting beam collision resolution
out of auto-beams.
It only effects 2 regtests:
repeat-percent.ly (the beamed C-Eb)
collision-dots-move.ly (there's only one beam & it moves)
I'd like to get this in 2.14.1 if possible in some form.
Ch
