id earlier that this is a more fundamental problem.
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Sorensen"
To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "Neil Puttock"
; "Patrick McCarty"
Cc: "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:25 PM
Subject:
On 8/10/09 4:23 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl, you wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 10:58 PM
>> Can you express in words a rule that describes why
>>
>> a8 a a16[ a a8] a a a[ a16 a16]
>>
>> is better than
>>
>> a8[ a a16 a a8] a8[ a a a16 a]
>>
>
> I can do no better than quote R
OK, I've found a setting that works *pretty well*, with one bad case:
\relative c'' {
\overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end
#'((* . (1 1 1 1))
((1 . 8) . (4 4)))
a8 a a a a a a a | % OK
\break
a16 a a8 a a
a a16 a a8 a | % OK now, was wrong, should be ...
a16[ a a8] a a
a[
Carl, you wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 10:58 PM
On 8/10/09 9:14 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
wrote:
With all Carl's mods applied just the expected two
inconsistencies
remain:
\relative c'' {
a8 a a16 a a8 a a a a16 a | % wrong, should be ...
a8 a a16[ a a8] a a a[ a16 a] |
a32 a a16 a a
On 8/10/09 9:14 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Trevor Daniels wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 8:49 AM
>>
>> Neil Puttock wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 12:31 AM
>>
>> 2009/8/10 Patrick McCarty :
>>
>>> I wonder why we are seeing different beaming patterns? I think
>>> all of
>>> your manu
Trevor Daniels wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 8:49 AM
Neil Puttock wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 12:31 AM
2009/8/10 Patrick McCarty :
I wonder why we are seeing different beaming patterns? I think
all of
your manually-beamed patterns are correct though.
Trevor's using the MinGW build I pos
Neil Puttock wrote Monday, August 10, 2009 12:31 AM
2009/8/10 Patrick McCarty :
I wonder why we are seeing different beaming patterns? I think all
of
your manually-beamed patterns are correct though.
Trevor's using the MinGW build I posted a few days ago, so it's
missing Carl's last change
2009/8/10 Patrick McCarty :
> I wonder why we are seeing different beaming patterns? I think all of
> your manually-beamed patterns are correct though.
Trevor's using the MinGW build I posted a few days ago, so it's
missing Carl's last changes to beam-settings.scm.
Regards,
Neil
_
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:38:22PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:59 PM
>
> >Could the two of you please take some of these examples and beam
> >them
> >manually so that I can see what they *should* do? I'll then try
> >to figure
> >out why the au
Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:59 PM
Could the two of you please take some of these examples and beam
them
manually so that I can see what they *should* do? I'll then try
to figure
out why the autobeam engraver doesn't do it.
Some explanation as to *why* it should work the w
On 8/9/09 1:56 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Patrick McCarty wrote Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:36 AM
>
>
>> On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:21:42PM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, I just realized that the inconsistency still exists, even
>> with my
>> patch. Here's an example:
Patrick McCarty wrote Sunday, August 09, 2009 3:36 AM
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:21:42PM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
Hmm, I just realized that the inconsistency still exists, even
with my
patch. Here's an example:
\relative c'' {
a8 a a a
a8 a a a
a16 a a8 a a
a8 a16 a a
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 07:21:42PM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>
> However, one of the most common complaints we've had is about the
> default groupings for 4/4 time. Let me outline the evolution that
> has taken place:
>
> 1) 2.12.3
>- 4 eighth notes that span from beat 1 through beat 2 (
Hello,
First of all, thanks go out to Carl and Trevor for reworking the
autobeaming implementation. The new way of working with beam
settings is greatly simplified now.
However, one of the most common complaints we've had is about the
default groupings for 4/4 time. Let me outline the evolution
14 matches
Mail list logo
