[cc: lilypond-devel]
This looks great, I don't see a regression test file; are you
adding that please?
Jan
Mike Solomon schreef op vr 07-01-2011 om 20:54 [-0500]:
> Kinda meh, but it gets the job done! I've included three patches,
> including the original.
> The second preserves the flat beams
Hey Jan,
Please check out http://codereview.appspot.com/3928041/ for the most recent
version, which has a regtest.
Cheers,
MS
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> [cc: lilypond-devel]
>
> This looks great, I don't see a regression test file; are you
> adding that please?
>
> And now for something completely different: when looking at those
> examples, I thought that it might be nice if beam slope was actually
> based on physical pitch rather than note position, so that something
> like f-fis gets slope, and something like eis-f doesn't.
Yes, this would be very help
> Attached is a leaner and meaner patch that requires no other patches
> (it bases off of the master) and implements this.
Very nice!
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-dev
On 1/8/11 11:02 AM, "Mike Solomon" wrote:
> Not a problem.
> Attached is a leaner and meaner patch that requires no other patches (it bases
> off of the master) and implements this.
> I've compiled all of the regtests and it breaks none of them. And, after
> briefly perusing the output, I don
Mike Solomon writes:
> Not a problem.
> Attached is a leaner and meaner patch that requires no other patches
> (it bases off of the master) and implements this.
> I've compiled all of the regtests and it breaks none of them. And,
> after briefly perusing the output, I don't think it drastically
2011/1/8 Werner LEMBERG :
> BTW, has someone done some research in trying to find printed,
> well-engraved examples?
I've only got one off the top of my head, the final example on this page:
http://www.musicbyandrew.ca/finale-lilypond-2.html
It's only one data point, but it does argue in favour o
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> I'm not sure whether using the `natural' angle is really that good
>>> – we are entering quite complicated formatting issues... Perhaps
>>> applying a damping factor to make the beams less steep?
>>
>> I think the usual beam slope calculation (which involves dampening
>> I'm not sure whether using the `natural' angle is really that good
>> $(Q#|(B we are entering quite complicated formatting issues... Perhaps
>> applying a damping factor to make the beams less steep?
>
> I think the usual beam slope calculation (which involves dampening)
> should be more or
Werner LEMBERG writes:
I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue
37, but my code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat
beams look best.
>>> +1
>>
>> Don't agree: the beams usually give an impression of the overall
>> pitch tendency. Flat beams o
>>> I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue
>>> 37, but my code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat
>>> beams look best.
>> +1
>
> Don't agree: the beams usually give an impression of the overall
> pitch tendency. Flat beams over a rising melody line look st
Mike Solomon writes:
> Forgot the test I ran...
Lines 2 and 10 appear to have beams touching notes. Perhaps the slanted
beams occupy more vertical space than the straight ones?
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.or
Kinda meh, but it gets the job done! I've included three patches, including the original.The second preserves the flat beams but gets rid of the crashing lily, whereas the third implements some bendiness.Cheers,MS
0003-Second-pass-on-potential-fix-for-issue-37.patch
Description: Binary
2011/1/7
> I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue 37, but my
> code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat beams look best.
>
> Lemme know what you think!
Judging by my very own personal taste i'd say that when notes are not on the
same staffline it would lo
On 7 January 2011 16:14, wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue 37, but my
> code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat beams look best.
>
> Lemme know what you think!
Looks interesting, though you need to do a regression test check to
make sure th
From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org
[lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of David
Kastrup [...@gnu.org]
Sent: 07 January 2011 17:15
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Potential fix for issue 37
Werner
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue 37,
>> but my code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat beams
>> look best.
>
> +1
Don't agree: the beams usually give an impression of the overall pitch
tendency. Flat beams over a rising me
> I'm not exactly sure what the desired output would be for issue 37,
> but my code assumes that if there are collision problems, flat beams
> look best.
+1
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailma
18 matches
Mail list logo
