Re: recent beaming change?

[Andrew Hawryluk]

Thanks Trevor and Patrick for the explanation! It sounds like the new
system will make a lot more sense, and if it beaming 4 eighth notes /
quavers together is the only exceptional case not covered by the new
system, then that exception is probably best added after they have got
their final version working. In the mean time, I will just finalize
this short project with LP 2.12.

Cheers,
Andrew

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Patrick McCarty wrote Re: recent beaming change?
>
>
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Hawryluk <address@hidden>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My latest LilyPond build (2.13.1, 24 Apr 2009) produces different
>>>> beaming than my last build.
>>>>
>>>> e.g. {c''8 c'' c'' c''}
>>>> used to produce |_|_|_|
>>>> and now it gives me |_| |_|
>>>>
>>>> Was this intentional?
>>>
>>> Yes, this was changed recently. The reasons are listed here:
>>>
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2009-03/msg00126.html
>>>
>>> I don't know if the plans to revise the auto-beaming code (being
>>> discussed by Carl, Trevor, and Neil) will address this issue.
>>> Clearly, it would be better to allow for this "special case", since
>>>
>>> |_|_|_|
>>>
>>> is much more common than
>>>
>>> |_| |_|
>>
>> Oops.  I should elaborate a little more about this.
>>
>> The first beaming pattern used to be the default in certain cases
>> (e.g. 4/4 time on beats 1 and 3), and this beaming pattern can still
>> be used by modifying beatLength, as Trevor described.
>>
>> But it is reasonable to expect users to use "\set beatLength =
>> #(ly:make-moment 1 2)" if they want the first beaming pattern, which
>> is more common?
>
> I can only repeat what I said in the thread referenced above, namely
> that the new default permits the correct beaming of
>
> \relative c'' {
> a16 a a8 a a
> a8 a16 a a8 a
> a8 a a16 a a8
> a8 a a a16 a  % beaming is different
> }
>
> Also, it seems easier to set beatLength to go from 2 to 4 beamed
> quavers than to revert auto-beaming rules if you wanted 2 rather
> than 4 beamed quavers.  Lily can't do both by default, and I think
> the new behaviour makes the better compromise.  I tried to reduce
> the number of auto-beaming rules to minimise the need to revert
> them.  But I'm quite happy to change the beaming rules back if a
> majority of users prefer the old default.
>
> That said, Carl is still hoping to unify the behaviour which would
> make overrides to the beaming behaviour far more rational.
>
> Trevor
>
>