Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

[Dan Eble]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I'm not sure whether this has been discussed before: What do you think
> of using `c[]' as a shorthand for `\autoBeamOff c \autoBeamOn'?
>
> Currently, `c[]' produces
>
>           _____
>             |
>             |
>             O
>
> (a note with a beamlet to the left and right), which is neither
> documented nor makes much sense IMHO.
>
> My special example is this where such a shorthand would be quite
> convenient:
>
>  c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16 } c8

I don't think [] should even compile.  c() currently means that a slur  
started prior to the note ends here, and a new slur begins (though I  
would write it `c)(').  If anything, c[] should mean the same thing  
for beams, but that would not make any sense.  Come to think of it, it  
doesn't make any sense for slurs either.
--
Dan