Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes: > Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at> writes: >> >>> Hello David, >>> >>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in >>> say piano music where something like this would make sense. >> I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for >> it is more likely to cause confusion than help. > > I disagree. > > Of course the feature is never actually _needed_ as it only saves a > couple of [ ] signs. But the example I gave in my earlier mail to > Werner is fairly common, actually - I attach some bars from Bach's > Ratswahlkantate BWV 29, and there are much more of these in the violin > original from BWV 1006. I'd wager it's fairly standard notation to > have beams over skips in piano music, actually. > > I don't quite see how the existence of a context property (switched > off by default) enabling non-ubiquitous, but established notation > could cause confusion. And after all, I think > > c'8[ s s d'] > > without a second voice in between isn't that much more confusing than > without the beam.
The lower voice could not possibly be autobeamed anyway since it starts behind the beat. You need to add all of the skips manually, and I don't think that adding the single beam you want would be enough effort to warrant autobeaming. -- David Kastrup
