On 8/21/08 2:25 PM, "Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carl > > I'm not competent to judge your patch but this sounds excellent! Thanks. > > When this arrived I was part-way through replying to your > previous email, which was to make the point that not all > combinations of the several parameters which control beaming > were necessarily compatible. There are many other combinations > of properties in LilyPond which do not make sense. I too was > coming to the conclusion that beatGrouping and beatLength > were essentially incompatible, and that beatLength was more > intended for controlling the subdivision of manual beams, > as I suggested earlier. I think with this current architecture, we can use beatLength to subdivide beams and either beatLength or beatGrouping to automatically divide beams. > > Do all the existing beam-related regression tests run > correctly through your code? They didn't as I had missed an improper setting of the default. They do now -- there are no changed files in all of the regression tests. See revised patch. Carl
auto-beam-3.patch
Description: auto-beam-3.patch
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
