Re: Auto-beaming infrastructure redo

[Carl Sorensen]

On 7/3/10 12:48 PM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> Carl Sorensen wrote Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:36 AM
> 
>> On 7/3/10 3:11 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> As we discussed earlier, this rhythm, f4 r8 f f f, could be
>>> handled by implementing a 'start' rule as well as an 'end' rule,
>>> to be sure beams could be started only on beats, couldn't it?
>> 
>> Yes, I've added start rules that solve that problem.  I don't only
>> start on
>> beats, but I avoid starting on the last note of a beat.  After
>> all, I think
>> we'd want the 16th notes in r8 f16 f f8 f f4 beamed together.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>> The harder problem is
>> 
>> f8 f f r f f
>> 
>> which will beam the first 3 notes together under the current
>> rules.
> 
> Why doesn't the lack of an end rule at 3/8 prevent this?

I haven't actually run it.  I guess it would beam this one OK, (because we
can beam over rests), but I'm pretty sure that

f8 f f r f4

would beam the three notes together.  The beam would end because there are
no more notes to be added when we run into the end of the measure.  I'll try
it once I get the new stuff compiled again.

> 
>> I think that subdivideUnit (or fundamentalUnit) and beatStructure
>> are a good
>> set.
> 
> Agreed.  fundamentalUnit might be better - it describes better
> what it is and gives the freedom in the future to subdivide in
> a different way, should the need arise.
> 

Maybe I'll call it fundamentalMoment (because it is, after all, a moment).
I was going to have it be a pair, but it's used as a moment everywhere in
C++, so instead of doing the conversion every time the property is accessed,
I'll just do it once at the time it's set.

Thanks,

Carl