Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> This may have nothing to do with your proposal/question but as a
>> reader I would find your example much harder to read/sightread than
>>
>>     c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8[ c16] } c8
>> or
>>     c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8[ c16 } c8]
>
> Yes.  What I really would like to write is
>
>  c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16[] } c8
>
> and I just demonstrated a case where my proposed notation would be
> helpful.

Can we stop the discussion on syntax extensions?  \noBeam does the job
perfectly, and it is rare enough case that it does not warrant extra
shorthands.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen