+list Figuring out how the number -0.63 was calculated is basically asking to read the code. Can you take a step back and explain what you need this information for?
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Chad Linsley <cli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm afraid my understanding of code is very limited. My hunch is that > there is an array of possible beam slopes generated which Lilypond then > calculates the least squares regression line. Is there any way to get > Lilypond to spit out this number? I can't figure out how the number -0.63 > was arrived at. > > C > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 1:57 AM Han-Wen Nienhuys <han...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Have a look at >> https://github.com/lilypond/lilypond/blob/9af92c35746c5d6de70ae5b3af5c696741f603cd/lily/beam-quanting.cc#L539 >> >> Op za 27 mei 2023 03:22 schreef Chad Linsley <cli...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Dear Han-Wen, >>> >>> Greetings from Montreal! I've been trying to learn about how Lilypond >>> calculates beam angles etc. and came across a great comment you made in the >>> Dorico Development diary about the subject of beams: >>> >>> "Regarding the stubby note group in your example: the scoring deems that >>> the disparity between ideal slope (-0.63 staffspace) and steinberg’s >>> example is a worse tradeoff than the shortened stems for LilyPond’s choice. >>> To be exact: the scoring for the steinberg choice is 2.57 (ideal slope) + >>> 1.57 (stem) and the LilyPond choice gets 0.17 (slope) + 2.96 (stem length)." >>> >>> https://blog.dorico.com/2015/03/development-diary-part-10/ >>> >>> With Beam.inspect-quants I was able to generate the same results of the >>> demerit points for the Steinberg and Lilypond examples as indicated. >>> However, I couldn't understand where the "ideal slope (-0.63 staffspace) >>> number comes from at the beginning of your comment. >>> >>> Anyway, thank-you for your time! >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Chad Linsley >>> >>> >>> -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen