On 12/18/09 10:57 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09 9:52 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
>>>
On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
wrote:
>
> A question. Does your code re
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 12/18/09 9:52 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
>>
>>> On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
>>> wrote:
A question. Does your code require autobeaming
rules to be defined for beams of every pos
On 12/18/09 10:13 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/18/09 3:58 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
>>> I think that if we establish the rule "a broken beam decision is
>>> never reconsidered" we can abolish the '* rule for beaming patterns
>>> and instead let a non-sp
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 12/18/09 3:58 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> I think that if we establish the rule "a broken beam decision is
>> never reconsidered" we can abolish the '* rule for beaming patterns
>> and instead let a non-specified minimal duration always be broken
>> according to th
On 12/18/09 9:52 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
>
>> On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A question. Does your code require autobeaming
>>> rules to be defined for beams of every possible
>>> duration? I ask becaus
Carl, you wrote Friday, December 18, 2009 4:21 PM
On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels"
wrote:
A question. Does your code require autobeaming
rules to be defined for beams of every possible
duration? I ask because the following example beams
inconsistently, and I'm not sure if this is due
On 12/18/09 2:49 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> Carl,
>
> A question. Does your code require autobeaming
> rules to be defined for beams of every possible
> duration? I ask because the following example beams
> inconsistently, and I'm not sure if this is due to your
> code or differences in
On 12/18/09 3:58 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> "Trevor Daniels" writes:
>
>> Carl,
>>
>> A question. Does your code require autobeaming
>> rules to be defined for beams of every possible
>> duration? I ask because the following example beams
>> inconsistently, and I'm not sure if this is d
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> Carl,
>
> A question. Does your code require autobeaming
> rules to be defined for beams of every possible
> duration? I ask because the following example beams
> inconsistently, and I'm not sure if this is due to your
> code or differences in the autobeaming rules fo
;Carl Sorensen"
To: "David Kastrup"
Cc: "Lily devel"
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: PATCH: Issue 638 Autobeaming
On 12/17/09 11:39 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
That bug has now been fixed, and your example now beams the whole
measur
: "Lily devel"
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: PATCH: Issue 638 Autobeaming
On 12/17/09 11:39 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
That bug has now been fixed, and your example now beams the whole
measure (as
expected). Patch update soon
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 12/17/09 9:53 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Of course, the results were quite different from what I half expected
>> to see.
>
> Yes. That difference is due to a pre-existing bug in the code. The
> consider_end check used the current duration, not the shortest
> du
On 12/17/09 11:39 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
> That bug has now been fixed, and your example now beams the whole measure (as
> expected). Patch update soon to arrive.
Patch set 2 is now on Rietveld.
http://codereview.appspot.com/179083
Thanks,
Carl
___
On 12/17/09 9:53 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> With the revised code and adding an autobeaming rule for 1/64 notes to
>> the default beam settings, the beaming is consistent.
>>
>> Without the addition of an autobeaming rule for 1/64 notes the beaming
>> appears to
Carl Sorensen writes:
> With the revised code and adding an autobeaming rule for 1/64 notes to
> the default beam settings, the beaming is consistent.
>
> Without the addition of an autobeaming rule for 1/64 notes the beaming
> appears to be inconsistent. I will investigate this further.
I was
On 12/17/09 7:54 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/17/09 1:25 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
>>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>>
On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>>>
>>> Deep breath.
>>>
>>> So it would appear that no terminal/irreversible d
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 12/17/09 1:25 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>>> On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Deep breath.
>>
>> So it would appear that no terminal/irreversible decision based on the
>> minimum duration has been done yet at th
On 12/17/09 1:25 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>>
>
> Deep breath.
>
> So it would appear that no terminal/irreversible decision based on the
> minimum duration has been done yet at this point of time.
>
> If that is
On 12/17/09 1:25 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>>
At last, thanks to help above and beyond the call of duty by Neil, I
have finally got the autobeam engraver fixed so it beams 4 4 right
when there are 16t
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>
>>> At last, thanks to help above and beyond the call of duty by Neil, I
>>> have finally got the autobeam engraver fixed so it beams 4 4 right
>>> when there are 16th notes in the 2nd or 4th beat of the measure.
>>
>> Very
On 12/16/09 10:23 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>> At last, thanks to help above and beyond the call of duty by Neil, I have
>> finally got the autobeam engraver fixed so it beams 4 4 right when there are
>> 16th notes in the 2nd or 4th beat of the measure.
>
> Very nice job. That's now a good r
> At last, thanks to help above and beyond the call of duty by Neil, I have
> finally got the autobeam engraver fixed so it beams 4 4 right when there are
> 16th notes in the 2nd or 4th beat of the measure.
Very nice job. That's now a good reason for me to upgrade to 2.13.X.
Does this apply only t
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> At last, thanks to help above and beyond the call of duty by Neil, I have
> finally got the autobeam engraver fixed so it beams 4 4 right when there are
> 16th notes in the 2nd or 4th beat of the measure.
Bravo, Carl! I can't really comment
23 matches
Mail list logo
