What are everyone's first impressions of 2.13.34, the alpha test?
I remembered to run convert-ly (which worked for me, but I don't have MacOS 10.4, where James W ran into trouble) but it made very few changes to scores written for 2.12. The change that jumped out at me was the spacing, both of notes and staves. Where 2.12 was too timid in trying to fit staves on a page, 2.13 sometimes tries to fit too many. I had some "between-system-spacing/padding" assignments in the paper blocks, put there to encourage tighter spacing from 2.12. The docs indicate that the vertical spacing variables have changed their structure (I'll have to see if convert-ly flagged them for me) so I removed them, and was much happier with the output. The horizontal spacing now quite aggressively tucks notes under/over the accidentals of the following notes. Maybe I will not need to reduce shortest-duration-space any more. The space between the first or last note in a measure, and the neighboring barline, seems occasionally too tight -- but maybe I'll like that, once I get used to it. The auto-beaming has changed, and seems to beam a little less often than the old system. The differences I saw were in tuplets, so I cannot yet say if there are any standard beams missing. So I'm hopeful that the eventual 2.14 will have equivalently pretty output to 2.12, with less need to override. (Okay, more pretty; the lined-up instrument names at the left of the score are very nice.) My hunch is that the default parameters, for the new spacing and auto-beaming systems, will get some adjustment after we find clean examples where adjustment is needed. -Keith _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user