> > 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,
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.
Please don't change c[ ]!
(Also, my apologies for being more than a month behind on the list; life intervenes ...)