On Wednesday, 26 July 2000, Romaz writes:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen ha scritto:
>
> > The output seems not so bad to me. What exactly is it that you find
> > ugly? Beamed rests are a feature of LilyPond 1.3, if you don't want
> > a rest beamed, don't ask for it, ie do:
>
> In my opinion, the beam over the dis (after the rest) should be less long: in
> fact, it is
> over both the rest and the note, instead it should be just over the note.
> Or I'm wrong??
You wrote:
[ es8 f a es' d r16 cis ]
so, the double beam should at least reach the r16. Consider:
[ r8 a8 ]
[ r16 a16 ]
In the first case, the single beam should reach the rest (that's
the case in music that I have seen). Similarly, in the second
case, both beams should reach the rest. Similarly, your case.
However, this is all `modern' notation, the old school doesnt'
allow beams over rests at all. So it may well be that you have
seen something different somewhere.
So, I'd say that the output is correct. If you'd really want to
change it, you can always override it:
[ es8 f a es' d
\property Voice.stemLeftBeamCount=#1
\property Voice.stemRightBeamCount=#1
r16
cis ]
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
