[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

From: Paul Scott
Subject: Re: shorthand for autoBeam control
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:36:31 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080724)

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.


reply via email to

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