Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-09-05 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > Yep, i got it working, too. I was just looking for an explanation of > symbols used. > > From what i see in beam-quanting.cc, > L means penalty for too short/too long stems, > H is a penalty for horizontal beams not covering staff lines, >

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-09-03 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> thanks! Is there any explanation to these numbers other than digging >> it myself from beam-quanting.cc? I've skimmed over it, but didn't >> find it immediately helpful. > > I've compiled with -DDEBUG_BEAM_SCO

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-09-02 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> thanks! Is there any explanation to these numbers other than digging >> it myself from beam-quanting.cc? I've skimmed over it, but didn't >> find it immediately helpful. > > I've compiled with -DDEBUG_BEAM_SCOR

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-09-01 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Janek Warchoł > wrote: >> i can confirm that the beaming remained virtually >> unchanged since LilyPond 2.6 (see attached "old vesions"). >> I've also checked LilyPond 2.16, and in some cases the beaming

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-08-31 Thread m...@mikesolomon.org
On 31 août 2012, at 20:47, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > >> That is a testament to the regtest's usefulness, and it was certainly >> intended to be like that. > > Ha, yes. It indeed helps keeping things perfectly the same [even if > they are obviously wrong], and that'

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-08-31 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > That is a testament to the regtest's usefulness, and it was certainly > intended to be like that. Ha, yes. It indeed helps keeping things perfectly the same [even if they are obviously wrong], and that's what it's intended for. I guess it's only obvious once you see it

Re: wrong beam positions in LilyPond

2012-08-31 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > when i met Jan in Waltrop, we discussed beam positions calculated by > LilyPond. I've shown Jan some cases where default beam positions were > ugly (see attached "beam problems") - he was surprised and asked me to > check whether old LilyPo