On 24/05/12 22:17, Urs Liska wrote:
Am
24.05.2012 14:14, schrieb Nick Payne:
On 24/05/12 21:19, address@hidden
wrote:
On 24 mai 2012, at 12:04, Urs Liska
wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:57, schrieb Toine
Schreurs:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:13:55PM
+1000, Nick Payne wrote:
In 2.14.2, the output for the
second bar beams all five eighth notes
together, as I would expect. In 2.15.39, the first
eighth note is not
beamed with the others:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
c8 c c c c c
r c c c c c
}
It apparently is different from 2.14.2, but I would not
call this a
regression.
In 3/4, I would like to have 6 eights beamed together, but
if any
rests are involved, the beaming should be per quarter in
order to
preserve the 3-beat character. In:
\relative c'' {
\time 3/4
r4 r8 c c c
}
the default beaming in 2.14.2 gives an impression of a
2-beat, which should
be avoided.
Toine Schreurs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just one comment, a question that I had several times when
reading such reports.
Don't know if this applies here, but:
A regression is something that doesn't work in a later
version and that has _deliberately_ worked in a previous
version. I.e. something that has once been fixed to work in
that specific way.
If it just was correct and isn't anymore, it isn't
considered a regression but just a newly introduced bug.
Best
Urs
Still a regression. Any change in behavior that is not fully
accounted for in the change log and that you feel leads to
worse behavior than a previous version is a regression.
People can then either report it as a change, at which point
it is a feature, or they can fix it, at which point the old
functionality is restored.
Reverting to the previous behaviour is simply a matter of
\set beamExceptions = #'((end . (((1 . 8) . (6)))))
Nick
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Well, not having followed this too closely:
I have the impression that you experience an effect or side effect
of the heavily changed beaming.
It this is the case, could you please check if this is documented?
Maybe you overlooked something.
Or maybe there's need for a documentations suggestion?
My search of the documentation regarding beaming didn't find much
information on what the defaults are/are intended to be:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/learning/automatic-and-manual-beams
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/beams
I had a look in Gould - she merely says that in 3/4 time, any number
of eighth notes can be beamed together. However, I would say that in
3/4 time, if you're default is to beam six eighth notes together,
then r8 c c c c c should be beamed as either r8 c[ c c c c] (i.e.
2.14 behaviour) or r8 c c[ c] c[ c], but not the current 2.15.39
default of r8 c c[ c c c].
Nick
|