Re: Distance of secondary beams

On 01/18/2017 03:13 AM, Andrew Bernard wrote: I think it needs better expressing - how does one go about submitting documentation improvement requests? If you wanted to go beyond a bug report with suggested rewording, you could submit a patch. The doc strings for grob properties like this

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Am 18.01.2017 um 09:13 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > Hi Abraham, > > Beam.length-fraction - thanks for uncovering this information for us. > I was never able to find this. It's really useful. So it seems like > setting the fraction to 1 gives the 'normal' distance, setting to 0 > gives no distance,

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Hi Abraham, Beam.length-fraction - thanks for uncovering this information for us. I was never able to find this. It's really useful. So it seems like setting the fraction to 1 gives the 'normal' distance, setting to 0 gives no distance, and setting to 0.5 gives half the normal distance, and so

Re: Distance of secondary beams

> runtime of lilypond for 32768 notes For completeness: 65'25" => ~ 8 notes / second ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Thanks, Simon! That answers two questions of mine (the lilypond limit and the shortest note in published music). Mail mail lacked the runtime of lilypond for 32768 notes in the last sentence. Not really relevant, but it is still running after an hour. Cheers, Joram

Re: Distance of secondary beams

On 17.01.2017 22:23, Noeck wrote: PS: While we are at it: LilyPond has flags until 1/128 (5 ‘flaglets’). Shorter durations (1/256, 1/512, etc.) are actually understood and typeset when they have beams. I gave up checking after 1/131072 = 1/2^17. See my contribution to

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Hi Abraham, Am 17.01.2017 um 17:30 schrieb Abraham Lee: > > I'm not sure why the calculation for this is so convoluted. I am not sure if this is the "why" you are looking for (if this is the answer to what you were wondering about). But I think the equation can be explained by the following

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Hi Abraham, Am 17.01.2017 um 16:41 schrieb Abraham Lee: > Hi, Urs! > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Malte Meyn > wrote: > > > > Am 17.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Urs Liska: > > I don't find the appropriate property to modify the

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Hi, Urs! On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Malte Meyn wrote: > > > Am 17.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Urs Liska: > > I don't find the appropriate property to modify the distance between > > secondary stems. Attached you'll find the result of \override > > Beam.beam-thickness =

Re: Distance of secondary beams

Am 17.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Urs Liska: > I don't find the appropriate property to modify the distance between > secondary stems. Attached you'll find the result of \override > Beam.beam-thickness = 0.15, and I need to adjust the beams to be closer > together, e.g. to 0.5 staff spaces. I don't