On 2/11/11 12:46 PM, "Mats Bengtsson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Consider the following three examples. Would you expect them to produce > the same result or different and in that case, which are the same? <snip> > > Trying it in LilyPond, it turns out that the processing order plays a > trick here. In the first test, the baseMoment setting is done after the > \time command, so it should be effective, however it turns out that the > setting is processed before the \time command in the second stave. So, > the only safe thing is to do all beam related settings in every single > stave of the score in order to be sure that a \time command in other > staves doesn't overwrite the settings. > You could argue that it's sufficient to have the \time command in a > single stave, but since the time signature is typeset in every stave, > it's very likely that a LilyPond user includes it in all the staves. On > the other hand, you don't really want to repeat all beam related > settings all over the place. The right thing to do in this case is to do \overrideTimeSignatureSettings #'(2 . 2) % timeSignatureFraction #'(1 . 4) % baseMomentFraction #'(1 1 1 1) % beatStructure #'() % beamExceptions before the first \time 2/2. > > Am I the first one to run into this problem? I couldn't find it > mentioned in the mailing list archives. I think so. Thanks for the catch! We'll add a warning to the docs, as well as a snippet that shows the problem, along with possible workarounds. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
