[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stem lenghts
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: Stem lenghts |
Date: |
Sun, 10 May 2009 23:30:12 -0300 |
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> LilyPond does not use a hardcoded set of rules; rather, it tries to
>> score different configurations, and pick the one with the best
>> scores. This is a technique that works much better than hardcoding
>> different rules, but in some cases there are small divergences with
>> the 'prescribed' quants. We even have a regtest for it, see
>> input/regression/beam-quant-standard.ly
>>
>> It might be possible to tune the scoring parameters to copy Ross
>> exactly, but probably some other configurations will fall over.
>
> I can imagine that after the scoring there's a second pass to
> fine-tune the result, for example, to `snap' various parts of the beam
> to the staff lines where possible.
No, that would not work; the snapped position was also scored and did
not win, so in many cases there is something wrong with it.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
- Stem lenghts, Pekka Siponen, 2009/05/10
- Re: Stem lenghts, Mark Polesky, 2009/05/10
- Re: Stem lenghts, Pekka Siponen, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Werner LEMBERG, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Mark Polesky, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Pekka Siponen, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Werner LEMBERG, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Pekka Siponen, 2009/05/11
- Re: Stem lenghts, Mark Polesky, 2009/05/11