[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: shorthand for autoBeam control
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:39:49 -0300

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 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.

Can we stop the discussion on syntax extensions?  \noBeam does the job
perfectly, and it is rare enough case that it does not warrant extra

Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden -

reply via email to

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