Re: split-subbeam direction

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> Yes, that is actually what I want - I'm trying to replicate
> a score that I have on hand and that's the way that it's
> typeset...

> > I get this:
> > 
> >     |  |  |  |
> >     |  |  |  |
> > +--+--+--+  +--+--+--+
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> > |              |  |  |
> > |              |  |  |
> > 
> > What did you expect?
> > 
> > This?
> > 
> >     |  |  |  |
> >     |  |  |  |
> > +--+--+--+  |
> > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> > |           +--+--+--+
> > |              |  |  |
> > |              |  |  |
> > 
> > Tbis is clearly ugly - the way the 5th stem is pointing
> away from the main beam.
> > I think that the lilypond beam code is brilliant in the
> way it works, always putting
> > the beams so that no stems "points away from them".
> > If I misunderstood you then please speak up!

We recently talked with Paul Roberts,  a notation guru that explained
to us that it should really be

     |  |  |  |
 |----------------|--|--|
 |---|--|--|  |---|--|--|  
 |                |  |  |  


(the 1st stem determines the "direction" of the beam)

I'm planning on extending the beam code to allow both versions, but
as you might imagine, it's not very high on the priority list.

-- 

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