Am 25.12.2016 um 21:04 schrieb Thomas Morley: > 2016-12-25 19:56 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska <[email protected]>: >> Bummer, this makes me sadly recall that I still have this "project" of >> rewriting the beaming code open :-( >> I think if I would have managed to finish that (or if I'll ever have the >> time to pick it up [help and encouragment welcome ;-) ]) these problems >> should also be covered. >> >> Urs > > > Hi Urs, > > an improved beaming code would be nice, ofcourse. > Can't help with C++-coding, though.
I'm sure you can, I'm more or less learning it along the way too ;-) But just to make this sure: the part of the code I started to dig in was the one that decides how many beams/beamlets each stem gets (triggered by the desire to get beam subdivisions right) (so this is what we're talking about here). What I did *not* touch (and don't intend to) is the code that decides *what* to beam in the first place (i.e. the \autoBeamOn calculations). Urs > > My coding aims at implementing some special conditions, which surely > will never be the default, but what I _believe_ Andrew wishes. > He will surely report back :) > > Cheers, > Harm > -- Urs Liska https://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
