2011/3/6 m...@apollinemike.com <m...@apollinemike.com>: > > On Mar 5, 2011, at 17:33, Janek Warchoł <lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Thanks for information! Yes, this should be investigated. >> However, i'm afraid that when i change some well-established >> parameters, it may cause unwanted side-effects in other beams. And the >> worst part is that i have no means to check this: it would require a >> gigantic proof-sheet consisting of thousands of different beams to >> check that some parameter combination works optimal. >> That's why i suggested a temporary solution. It could also serve as a >> reference beaming database later. > > Having recently OD'd on beam quanting, I am convinced that the right cocktails > of penalties and demerits can hit all of the targets that would potentially > be on this list. > There's nothing wrong with keeping a list like this in the form of a regtest > with lots of beams (I think it's a great idea!), but I think the goal should > be to modify > the quanting such that it attains the result you want while not breaking > other regtests. > I know this is a tall order and means more work, but it seems like a better > use > of contributor time and a more sustainable solution.
Ok. It's definately beyond me now, so i'll come back to it later. Meanwhile i'll collect samples for the regtest - please send me snippets if you find beams looking bad. I'll speak again when i reach 200 examples :) cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
