Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
> In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
> together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is
> not beamed with the others:
>
> \relative c'' {
> \time 3/4
> c8 c c c c c
> r c c c c c
> }
Hi Nick,
Thanks for reporting this unexpected behaviour and for stimulating
some useful discussion. It seems that:
Default beaming for this case changed from 2.14.2 to 2.15.39.
A workaround has been provided to restore the previous behaviour.
Graham, as project manager, has confirmed this should not be classed as a
regression.
Phil Holmes has identified the change to beaming that is most likely
responsible.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2246
which is titled "beaming in 3/4 - a setting to not beam 3 eights
against the beat" so it looks like the design is not clear.
There is an existing, open tracker for beaming in 3/4:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1817
I'm creating a tracker so that someone can take up the task of
designing this feature.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2566
Cheers,
Colin.
--
Colin Hall
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Phil Holmes wrote: > Looks to me like a bug in 2.14.2. Beaming 5 quavers together doesn't give > much clue to the beat pattern? +1, 2.14 behavior seems wrong to me. BTW, Ted Ross says "in 3/4, [...] notes on the second beat can be beamed with notes on the third beat" and gives example with f8[ g] a[ g f g]. Unfortunately, there's no example with rest like ours. cheers, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Urs Liska"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which
should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for
in the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a
previous version is a regression. People can then either report it as a
change, at which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point
the old functionality is restored.
Regression or no regression, think
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2246 caused this change.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Urs Liska"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which
should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for
in the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a
previous version is a regression. People can then either report it as a
change, at which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point
the old functionality is restored.
Looks to me like a bug in 2.14.2. Beaming 5 quavers together doesn't give
much clue to the beat pattern?
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:19:29PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: > On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote: > > A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has > > _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once > > been fixed to work in that specific way. > > If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression > > but just a newly introduced bug. > > Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in > the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous > version is a regression. I believe that Urs has the correct definition, although I don't have a reference handy. It should be in the CG, or at least the GOP decision from last summer, though. If we try to account for accidental changes of accidentally-working stuff, 2.16 will never be out (until/unless we change the release policy during GOP 2, which I will be proposing). - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24/05/12 22:17, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 14:14, schrieb Nick Payne:
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is
not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat,
which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading
such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and
that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e.
something that has once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully
accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to worse
behavior than a previous version is a regression. People can then
either report it as a change, at which point it is a feature, or
they can fix it, at which point the old functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Well, not having followed this too closely:
I have the impression that you experience an effect or side effect of
the heavily changed beaming.
It this is the case, could you please check if this is documented?
Maybe you overlooked something.
Or maybe there's need for a documentations suggestion?
My search of the documentation regarding beaming didn't find much
information on what the defaults are/are intended to be:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/learning/automatic-and-manual-beams
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/beams
I had a look in Gould - she merely says that in 3/4 time, any number of
eighth notes can be beamed together. However, I would say that in 3/4
time, if you're default is to beam six eighth notes together, then r8 c
c c c c should be beamed as either r8 c[ c c c c] (i.e. 2.14 behaviour)
or r8 c c[ c] c[ c], but not the current 2.15.39 default of r8 c c[ c c c].
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
Am 24.05.2012 14:14, schrieb Nick Payne:
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat,
which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading
such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and
that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something
that has once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully
accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to worse
behavior than a previous version is a regression. People can then
either report it as a change, at which point it is a feature, or they
can fix it, at which point the old functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Well, not having followed this too closely:
I have the impression that you experience an effect or side effect of
the heavily changed beaming.
It this is the case, could you please check if this is documented? Maybe
you overlooked something.
Or maybe there's need for a documentations suggestion?
Best
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24/05/12 21:19, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has
_deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once been
fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression but
just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous
version is a regression. People can then either report it as a change, at
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
>>> In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
>>> together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
>>> beamed with the others:
>>>
>>> \relative c'' {
>>> \time 3/4
>>> c8 c c c c c
>>> r c c c c c
>>> }
>> It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
>> regression.
>>
>> In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
>> rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
>> preserve the 3-beat character. In:
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>>\time 3/4
>> r4 r8 c c c
>> }
>>
>> the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
>> be avoided.
>>
>> Toine Schreurs
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
> reports.
> Don't know if this applies here, but:
> A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that has
> _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has once
> been fixed to work in that specific way.
> If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a regression
> but just a newly introduced bug.
> Best
> Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully accounted for in
the change log and that you feel leads to worse behavior than a previous
version is a regression. People can then either report it as a change, at
which point it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when reading such
reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later version and that
has _deliberately_ worked in a previous version. I.e. something that has
once been fixed to work in that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't considered a
regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM +1000, Nick Payne wrote:
> In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
> together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
> beamed with the others:
>
> \relative c'' {
> \time 3/4
> c8 c c c c c
> r c c c c c
> }
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a 2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Beaming regression 2.15.39 compared to 2.14.2
In 2.14.2, the output for the second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
<><>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
