> > I'm not analyzing whether the slopes or quanting of the beams are > correct. That's above my engraving experience. I've just been analyzing > the regtest, and when the regtest was implemented, and how its performance > has changed between versions. > > And the only regtest I've been looking at is beam-quanting-32nd.ly, > because that's the only one that claims to avoid making stems too long.... > > The regtest doesn't show the stems that are too long. The current code > "respects stem lengths". > > The alternative typesetting for the half-staff-space slope would be to > place the 1/32 beam hanging from the g staff line on the right hand side, > and sitting on the e staff line on the left hand side, and then have the > 1/16 and 1/8 beams 3/4 of a staff space below the next beam above, so they > don't need need to touch a staff line. But then the stems would be 2 staff > spaces longer in measure 2 of the regtest. > > ahhh ok, I definitely misunderstood that then. sorry! thanks for explaining
> 16th beams touch staff lines in every one of the cases you set from Ross, > IIUC. I can't see any of the LilyPond 16th beams that don't touch the staff > lines. Have I missed something? > well you missed one (1) place where the beam ends don't touch staff lines (the D-C-B-B in the third group of 16th notes), but this one is also my fault because I got sidetracked by lilypond's beam slopes and short-ass stems, so I ended up trying to use that test page thing as an example of lilypond's too-steep beaming and too-short stems, and then forgot to explain that!! because I'm stupid or smth idk. sorry again :( > But more damping will lead to longer stems in 16th beams. > yeah that's primarily why i use damping = #2 really > Have you been able to get more damping and have 16th beams fail to touch > staff lines? If so, I think that would be a bug, in the sense of behavior > contrary to design intent. > I have! a 2.5 page piece I recently (i.e. this week) typeset that used damping = #2 had me manually setting beam positions ~12 times to ensure no beam ends fell on staff spaces > As you post issues to the issues list, I think you should distinguish > between problems with triple beams and those with double beams. > > And it would be really nice in the issue to have a simple example that > shows the problem, so a regression test can be created to validate the fix. > ah mannnn I JUST finished posting the issue bro /lh ok I'll do that give me an hour or two :) >
