On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > On 2/4/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> could you make a separate patch for the engraver, fixing the issue >>> below; I think the engraver can go in without further discussion. >> >> Done & attached, but I don't know if it's a good idea to put an engraver in >> the source that doesn't do anything yet. > > Well, it passes a regtest check. ;) > In all seriousness, it may well be worth pushing it just to keep > things organized, have everybody working from a common base, etc. > > Cheers, > - Graham
That works too! We just have to make sure to make a note in the docs if it winds up being part of 2.14 without any real beam collision. Otherwise, if people try to figure out the logic of the program by reading through the source (which is how I have a quarter of the half clue I currently have about what's going on), they may get confused. I found a Ligeti example that I also threw up on the site w/ the other beam collision examples - it's a minefield for voice crossing, some of which pushes the beam up by as much as a 5th. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
