- **labels**: --> Fixed_2_21_0
- **status**: Started --> Fixed
- **Patch**: push -->
- **Comment**:
~~~
issue #1493: Problem with horizontal beams staging
author Torsten Hämmerle <[email protected]>
Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:20:16 +0000 (21:20 +0100)
committer James Lowe <[email protected]>
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:38:49 +0000 (18:38 +0000)
commit 30a874a29b81dbb174a60d185fc3f28bba85604c
~~~
Thank you Torsten.
---
** [issues:#1493] Problem with horizontal beams**
**Status:** Fixed
**Labels:** Fixed_2_21_0
**Created:** Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:21 PM UTC by Anonymous
**Last Updated:** Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:28 PM UTC
**Owner:** Torsten Hämmerle
**Attachments:**
-
[beams.ly](https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1493/attachment/beams.ly)
(807 Bytes; application/octet-stream)
-
[screenshot.png](https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1493/attachment/screenshot.png)
(18.9 kB; image/png)
*Originally created by:* *anonymous
*Originally created by:*
[[email protected]](http://code.google.com/u/106131861630194758622/)
James Lowe :
There seems to be an inconsistency with setting horizontal beams.
We have a snippet where we state that
\override Beam \#'damping = \#+inf.0
Should generate horizontal beams in all cases.
However the simple example attached shows some odd inconsistencies.
\version "2.13.40"
\relative c'' \{
\override Beam \#'damping = \#+inf.0
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, % all beams horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, % all beams horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, % 2nd and 4th group not
Horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, % 2nd and 4th group not
Horizontal
\}
\relative c'' \{
\override Beam \#'damping = \#+inf.0
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, \break % 4th group not
Horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, \break % 2nd and 4th group not
Horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, \break % 2nd and 4th group not
Horizontal
f16 g a b a c d g, a b a c d e f g, \break % 2nd and 4th group not
Horizontal
\}
Phil Holmes :
I'd suggest the snippet is worth sorting out, too. What do you reckon - adding
the commands
\override Beam \#'details \#'damping-direction-penalty = \#0
\override Beam \#'details \#'round-to-zero-slope = \#0
to the existing snippet, or a new one pointed to by the old one, that says "if
\override Beam \#'damping = \#+inf.0 doesn't do what you want, add the other
commands too, as shown here"?
---
Sent from sourceforge.net because [email protected] is
subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is
a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Testlilyissues-auto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
