Re: alpha test autobeaming

[Carl Sorensen]

Keith,

Thanks for an excellent report.


On 9/27/10 11:51 AM, "Keith E OHara" <address@hidden> wrote:

> In "First impressions of alpha test" I wrote:
> My old scores had two situations with missing beams, neither one is a
> simple
> regression:
> 
> 1) swung triplets in 2/8 are not beamed.  Both 2.12 and 2.13 are missing
> beams, but in different ways.  My intention is to report on bug-lilypond
> after giving a bit of time to hear from other users.
> \relative c'' {
>    \time 6/16
>    c16 c c c8 c16
>    \time 2/8
>    \times 2/3 {c16 c c} \times 2/3 {c8 c16}
>    \scaleDurations #'(2 . 3) {c16 c c c8 c16}
> }

Please report this on bug-lilypond without waiting for more information.
This is a clear bug.  (And I'm the author of the code in question).

> 
> 2) Both 2.12 and 2.13 miss beams in the middle of a particular cadenza.
> But my minimal example is
> { \override Fingering #'add-stem-support = ##t
>    \cadenzaOn
>    \repeat unfold 4 {c8 c c c \bar""}
>    \cadenzaOff
> }
> Removing the stem-support (!) removes the problem, on the Win32 builds.
> Actually, 2.12 drew all the beams in the actual score
> (http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=1776) but started
> to drop beams as I simplified.

This is a very interesting issue.
The following code beams properly, without the override.  But it also
reports a warning message:

warning: cannot find or create `Timing' called `'


\version "2.13.34"

\score {
  \relative c'' {
    \cadenzaOn
    \repeat unfold 4 {c8 c c c \bar""}
    \cadenzaOff
  }
}


But the code below fails to beam the 3rd beat, even though it issues no
warnings.

\version "2.13.34"

\score {
  \relative c'' {
    \time 4/4
    \cadenzaOn
    \repeat unfold 4 {c8 c c c \bar""}
    \cadenzaOff
  }
}

Adding the Fingering override doesn't cause the beaming to work correctly
here, either.

> P.S. My advice to users using the new autobeaming: Read the manual
> backwards, seriously.

Thank you for this feedback.  The new documentation was just dropped into
the existing organization.  I'll look at a restructuring to make things
clearer.

Thanks,

Carl