Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

[Paul Scott]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> My special example is this where such a shorthand would be quite
>>> convenient:
>>>
>>>   c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16 } c8
>>>       
>> 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.
>   
My point is that is it not helpful in this case because it produces a
notation which is IMO harder to read than the two variations that I
gave.  Maybe you can give an example where \noBeam makes something
easier to read instead of harder.

Paul