On 6 November 2011 05:20, Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/5/11 8:27 PM, "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> New-odd-rhythm is odd as well (and it should be, because the rhythm is >>> odd -- with this type of syncopation the quaver should be broken up >>> into a hemidemisemiquaver (did I get this right) tied to a >>> double-dotted semiquaver, which would have a tie at the quaver >>> boundary. >> >>New-odd-rhythm does not make sense: it has 5/16 to the beam on the >>"second" beat. > > I agree. Is it any worse than Old-odd-rhythm, which has 7/64 to the beam > on the "first" beat and 9/64 to the beam on the "second" beat? > > My inclination would be to not worry about this change in the regtests -- > it goes from one bad to a different bad. Neither one is right. Instead, > I'd fix the regtests so that they had sensible beaming, and demonstrate > that it worked properly with sensible beaming.
Thanks for working on that. I'm certainly not an expert in these matters, but in regards to the odd rythm example, I do think the new version looks better and is more readable than the old one. And as long as it works correctly in the regular case, I don't believe we have to worry that much about these odd ones. It is always possible to tweak them directly if necessary. -- Sven Axelsson ++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++ >++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<. +++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
