lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue 37 - new work


From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Issue 37 - new work
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:55:09 -0500

On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Graham Percival wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:38:56PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> I cooked up this musical example that shows both responses to upward
>>> and downward pressure to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
>>> 
>>> Is there a way to get this type of collision avoidance w/o a 2nd
>>> quanting pass?
>> 
>> Actually, it would appear a third pass would be nice in order to put
>> sympathetic pressure on the lowest beam, decreasing the discrepancy of
>> its stems with the adjacent (highly compressed) stem set.
> 
> Hmm...
>  lilypond -p 0 my_file.ly    % for quick work
>  lilypond -p 2 my_file.ly    % for a draft to print out
>  lilypond -p 9 my_file.ly    % for the final score
> ;)
> 
> 
> Despite the joke, this is a semi-serious suggestion that I've been
> hoping that somebody might be interested in for years.  There's a
> bunch of options that we can enable or disable to change the
> amount of processing power; it would be really nice if one (or
> more) people seriously looked into this, and provided an easy way
> to change between the "optimization" levels.


I completely agree.  I think that the beam collision engraver (if it makes it 
into lilypond) is the prime example of something that could be included or left 
out with optimization flags.  There can even be multiple collision engravers 
that perform the same task but provide different levels of optimization.

Cheers,
MS


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]