Am 15.01.2016 um 08:49 schrieb Urs Liska: >> > Actually, I'm missing a solution that looks like F) but has three >> > beams between 2 and 3. > I've been thinking about that too. This would somehow be like a "partial > subdivision" where the beam count is not governed by the > rhythmic_importance of the right note. > > Am I right that you want a solution that prints exactly one beam less > than the neighboring stem with the least beams. I don't think you'd want > to print four beams if it should happen to fall on a "1/64" subdivision? > > In general I think having the implicitly generated subdivision governed > by the metric situation is a good thing, as it helps the eye knowing > where we are. So I would prefer having yet another context option to > control that behaviour. Any opinions whether that might be appropriate > (to add an option for such a minor issue)? >
Maybe I should not add yet another option but change the (new) option to take a symbol \set subdivideAtStrictBeatBeaming = subdivision % beam counts like at a subdivision \set subdivideAtStrictBeatBeaming = simple % print as many beams as possible (one less than all neighbors) \set subdivideAtStrictBeatBeaming = off We could then discuss which of the two first options should be the default. To make it a little clearer for people who haven't followed that closely so far: "subdivision" would print the result as in line F) of the strict-beat-beaming.pdf attached earlier "simple" would instead print three beams between stem 2 and 3 of that line. Opinions? Urs _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user