lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

 From: Trevor Bača Subject: Re: shorthand for autoBeam control Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:35:19 -0500

On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > 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

> 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

First of all, I'm quite conservative and I really dislike such
beamlets.  Additionally, all music before, say, 1930, doesn't use
beamlets at all, so you need a means to produce flagged notes.

Hi Werner, Hi everyone,

Yikes!

I guess I'm the opposite of whatever notationally conservative would be: I *need* beamlets available to me in my scores, and have used them extensively (and successfully) in LilyPond. And, AFAICT, changing the meaning of c[ ] would eliminate any ability for me to get the beamlets where I need them.