[Top][All Lists]

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

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 <address@hidden> 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
> > 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.

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,


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.

Please don't change c[ ]!

(Also, my apologies for being more than a month behind on the list; life intervenes ...)

Trevor Bača

reply via email to

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