Janek Warchoł wrote Saturday, March 05, 2011 12:05 PM
while i'd love to improve beaming algorithm itself so that it
would
produce perfect beams on its own, it's a task way beyond my
current
skills. Still some wrong beams bother me very much, for example
this
one
\relative c'' { b8[ a16 g] }
it's really too high, and the secondary beam doesn't cover the
staffline despite being able to easily do so.
Compare it to \relative
c'' { g8[ f16 e] } - this one is more difficult (more stafflines
to
take care of), but executed better.
When I suggested investigating the automatic beaming I didn't
mean messing with the code. But there are a number of parameters
in the #'details property of beam which might be worth exploring.
For example, the default value of stem-length-demerit-factor is
5. Setting this to 10 lowers the beam of the first example above by
a staff space. Setting it to 20 lowers it by 2 ss. Neither of
these
settings changes the beam position in the second of your examples.
But I've not investigated any others.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
