Am 12.01.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Am 12.01.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Mark Knoop: >> At 17:15 on 12 Jan 2016, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>>> b) have *no* beamlets at all and let the subdivision be calculated >>>> as usual (fourth attachment) >>> This is what I prefer. >>> >> +1. Gould seems to always use stemlets with beamlets when the beam >> count > 2. >> > I'll see how far I can get in this direction. I like the clarity of not > disturbing the subdivision through beamlets. However, it's pretty > complicated because there are so many different constellations (with > regard to placement of the rest(s) in relation to the subdivision and > with regard to the relation of previous and following beam count). > > Urs
I must say I find the attached image (with 1/16 subdivision and rests before each division) pretty clear. What should the behavior of the *last* one be here? (The problem is that the first and the last stem aren't actually considered but simply keep their default number of beams to the inside of the beam). Urs
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
