On 2023-01-29 18:19, Lukas-Fabian Moser
wrote:
Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
Valentin Petzel
writes:
Hello David,
in most cases definitely, but I suppose
Valentin Petzel writes:
>> The lower voice could not possibly be autobeamed anyway since it starts
>> behind the beat. You need to add all of the skips manually, and I don't
>> think that adding the single beam you want would be enough effort to
>> warrant autobeaming.
>
> Why would this be so?
> The lower voice could not possibly be autobeamed anyway since it starts
> behind the beat. You need to add all of the skips manually, and I don't
> think that adding the single beam you want would be enough effort to
> warrant autobeaming.
Why would this be so? Lilypond does not have issues
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
> Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Valentin Petzel writes:
>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
>>> say piano music where something like this would make sense.
>> I'd say that proportion seems
Am 29.01.23 um 17:36 schrieb Valentin Petzel:
Hello David,
in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in say piano
music where something like this would make sense.
Additionally, Schenker graphs would be an obvious example where beaming
over skips is useful. (But of
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
> Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Valentin Petzel writes:
>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
>>> say piano music where something like this would make sense.
>> I'd say that proportion seems
Am 29.01.23 um 17:54 schrieb David Kastrup:
Valentin Petzel writes:
Hello David,
in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
say piano music where something like this would make sense.
I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for
it is
Valentin Petzel writes:
> Hello David,
>
> in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in
> say piano music where something like this would make sense.
I'd say that proportion seems low enough that providing automatisms for
it is more likely to cause confusion than help.
Hello David,
in most cases definitely, but I suppose there might be some cases in say piano
music where something like this would make sense.
Valentin
Am Sonntag, 29. Jänner 2023, 15:37:23 CET schrieb David Kastrup:
> Beaming over skips seems like it would produce incomprehensible results.
Valentin Petzel writes:
> Hello Werner,
>
> I felt it a bit inconsistent to make rests optionally auto beamable
> and to leave skips untouched ...
Beaming over skips seems like it would produce incomprehensible results.
--
David Kastrup
At 10:27 on 29 Jan 2023, Valentin Petzel wrote:
> Hello Werner,
> this would not be hard to get done. Here’s an experimental commit:
> https://gitlab.com/vpetzel/lilypond/-/commit/5267b574d27316b7c5d45080b32200dabc5d37dc[1]
> Using this test:
> {
> c'8 d' r e' r f' g' r | r r r a' b' s s
>> Veeery nice, thanks! I only wonder what situation you envision to
>> add a special property for skips...
>
> \version "2.24.0"
>
> \new Staff \relative
> <<
> { c'8[ s s c] }
> \\
> { s c c s }
>>>
>
> doesn't seem unreasonable to me (for example in piano music).
OK, thanks.
Hi Werner,
Am 29.01.23 um 11:30 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
IMHO, there are definitely valid situations where
automatic beaming over rests does make sense.
this would not be hard to get done. Here’s an experimental commit:
[...]
Veeery nice, thanks! I only wonder what situation you envision to
> > IMHO, there are definitely valid situations where
> > automatic beaming over rests does make sense.
>
> this would not be hard to get done. Here’s an experimental commit:
> [...]
Veeery nice, thanks! I only wonder what situation you envision to add
a special property for skips...
clusively a saltarello-like
> >> rhythm:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ```
> >> \time 6/8 d8[ r d] d[ r d]
> >> ```
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I now wonder whether it makes sense to control this b
>> ```
>>
>> I now wonder whether it makes sense to control this behaviour with
>> a property, and whether this behaviour (i.e., autobeaming over
>> rests) can be easily implemented at all...
>
> Depending on how regular this actually is, you might be able to do
>
whether it makes sense to control this behaviour with a
property, and whether this behaviour (i.e., autobeaming over rests)
can be easily implemented at all...
Depending on how regular this actually is, you might be able to do
something like
\version "2.24.0"
\new Voice <<
this behaviour with a
property, and whether this behaviour (i.e., autobeaming over rests)
can be easily implemented at all...
Werner
18 matches
Mail list logo
