On 8/14/09 4:46 PM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" <reinh...@kainhofer.com> wrote:
> Attached is my current code for general complex time signatures (arbitrary #
> of fractions, arbitrary # of numerators). I have not yet tried to get it into
> master, because the auto-beaming does not yet follow the signature.
How should auto-beaming respond to a compound time signature?
In particular, how should ((2 3 8) (4 8)) be different from (2 3 4 8)?
I think with the new autobeaming code it would not be hard to get the
top-level beaming right.
BeatLength, on the other hand, probably doesn't have sufficient structure
built into it to handle ((1 2 3 4 8) (2 4) (2 3 8)), because for that time
signature, beatLength should vary with measure position.
I'm willing to take a shot at fixing the auto-beaming, if you'd like.
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
