|
From: | Paul Scott |
Subject: | Re: shorthand for autoBeam control |
Date: | Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:36:31 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (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. Paul
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |