Well,
This example is almost identical to your first example. A beamed note is
broken by a bar and break and the beam is broken. Lily doesn't know how to
beam them. The 2 leftover notes are beamed in both examples - again i don't
know why, but it's quite consistent behaviour and consistent with lily not
knowing what you intend until you tell her.
You could keep making odd examples of undefined beaming until the cows come
home, but surely it would be a lot quicker just to beam manually???
--
Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From: N. Andrew Walsh
To: Phil Holmes
Cc: lilypond-user
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: weird de-beaming behavior
Hi Phil,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Phil Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm no expert on lily's beaming system. However, in your second example
you don't break an existing beam with a bar/line break, so it's rather
different from the first where the "correct" beaming was broken.
Not knowing anything about how Lily works, I'm inclined to agree. in 3/4 (at
least here) a measure comprising only 8th-notes will be beamed straight
through, thus (pseudo code):
e8[ e c' c c c c]
Whereas a 4/4 bar is beamed in two groups of four.
So you're correct, that there's something going on with default beaming being
broken up. In fact, with the following MWE (also in 4/4):
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c'' {
c e, g8 a
\bar "" \break
g e g16 a b8
}
the "g8 a" at the end of the first line is *also* broken into two unbeamed
8th-notes, but the two that follow the break do not. Why would this be?
Cheers,
A_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
