On 8/10/09 9:14 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> 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 <pnor...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Aah, thanks for reminding me, Neil. I'd forgotten those. I'll
>> fish
>> them out and apply them to my current LP.
>
> 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 a a32 a a16 a a a a32 a a16 a a a a32 a | % wrong,
> should be ...
> a32[ a a16 a a] a[ a32 a a16 a] a[ a a32 a a16] a a a a32 a
> }
>
> The second of these can be fixed (bypassed really) with
>
> \overrideBeamSettings #'Score #'(4 . 4) #'end #'(((1 . 32) . (8 8 8
> 8)))
>
> which I think is a more acceptable beaming anyway,
> but the first is a more fundamental problem which cannot be
> fixed by any override which preserves beam breaks at
> 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 AFAICS.
OK, so now I can see the differences. Thanks, Trevor.
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]
? It seems to me that something has triggered a desire to break the beam on
the beats, when
a8[ a a a] a[ a a a]
is desired to break at 1/2.
Perhaps if you can explain this, I can figure out what is missing in the
autobeaming algorithms.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
