I've been asked a beaming rule question:
Is it possible to specify a different beaming rule if a beat is divided
into a triplet? In this example
\version 2.16.0
\score {
{\time 3/8
d''4 \times 2/3 { bes''16 a'' bes'' }
fis''8 g''8 r
ees'' \times 2/3 { d''16 c'' bes'
Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
I've been asked a beaming rule question:
Is it possible to specify a different beaming rule if a beat is divided
into a triplet? In this example
\version 2.16.0
\score {
{\time 3/8
d''4 \times 2/3 { bes''16 a'' bes'' }
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:30 AM
To: lilypond-user
Subject: Different beaming for triplets
I've been asked a beaming rule question:
Is it possible to specify a different beaming rule if a beat is divided into
a triplet? In this example
\version 2.16.0
\score {
{\time 3/8
Thank you David (and to the others that replied), I had a go at getting
my head round this before I asked, I find it a serious challenge. It
would be nice to have a graphical way of selecting what you want
visually and letting the computer do the hard work...
Your new 2.19 syntax certainly looks
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 16:52 +, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com
To: lilypond-user lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Different beaming for triplets
I've been asked a beaming rule
Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
Thank you David (and to the others that replied), I had a go at
getting my head round this before I asked, I find it a serious
challenge.
Yes.
It would be nice to have a graphical way of selecting what you want
visually and letting the computer
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
Thank you David (and to the others that replied), I had a go at
getting my head round this before I asked, I find it a serious
challenge.
Yes.
It would be nice to have a graphical
Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:05 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
Thank you David (and to the others that replied), I had a go at
getting my head round this before I asked, I find it a serious
challenge.