Re: Extent of automatic beams?

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am currently rewriting footnote documentation, and I got the somewhat
>> embarrassing screenshot
>>
>>
>>
>> It would appear that the dimensions of the Beam grob are located at the
>> note where LilyPond _decides_ where to end the beam, not where the beam
>> then actually ends.
>>
>> Anybody have a suggestion what might be at work here?  For what it is
>> worth, this should pretty much be the behavior of the old
>> \footnoteAutoGrob or whatever else it was called, too.
>
> As you may know the auto beaming is weird, because it has to emit a
> Beam after the real end point has already passed.  However, wouldnt it
> be easier to simply use manual beams in the example? Putting a
> footnote on something automatically generated sounds like a bad
> practice, since it stops making sense when you alter the autobeaming
> rules.

Well, the point _was_ placing a footnote on an automatically generated
beam as an _indirectly_ created grob.  It would appear that I might
better look for grobs better suited as example.  Caught me off-guard,
however.

-- 
David Kastrup