On 3/19/09 8:34 AM, "Mats Bengtsson" <mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se> wrote:
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 3/19/09 5:13 AM, "Mats Bengtsson" <mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Should we turn this into feature request to make the automatic
>>> subdivision of beams even more flexible, with separate rules for
>>> different note lengths, or would the resulting scheme get too messy to
>>> use and implement?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that this should be a feature request.
>>
>> It also seems to me that we could make this quite easy to use as a default.
>>
>> We currently have beatGrouping used to end beams and beatLength used to
>> subdivide beams.
>>
>> If we want more control over ending beams, we use override-auto-beam-setting
>> to add beam endings for specific beam types (16th, 32ned, etc.)
>>
>> We should be able to add a functionality for override-beam-subdivision that
>> is beam type specific, just like we've done for beam endings. Although it
>> may be somewhat hard to get just right, the documentation is in *much*
>> better shape than it used to be (thanks, Trevor), and we can use a
>> corresponding syntax so it must only be learned once.
> You mean, using
> #(override-auto-beam-setting '(subdivide 1 32 3 4) 1 8)
> to get a subdivision after the first four 32nd notes in 3/4 meter? Good
> idea!
Actually, that's not what I meant. But it's what I should have meant. So I
guess I should have meant that. I'm glad people smarter than me are around
to pick up the pieces!
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user