Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4

[Dmytro O. Redchuk]

On Sun 14 Aug 2011, 15:20 Phil Holmes wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> news:address@hidden
> >"Bertrand Bordage" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> >>Hi again,
> >>
> >>There's a small defect in autobeaming:
Added by Phil as 1817:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1817

(just for the record)

> >>%%%
> >>\markup "This:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 3/4 a4. b8 c d e d c b4. a8 b c d c b a2. }
> >>\markup "looks like 6/8:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 6/8 a4. b8 c d e d c b4. a8 b c d c b a2. }
> >>\markup "but should be like this:"
> >>\relative c'' { \time 3/4 a4. b8\noBeam c d e d c\noBeam b4. a8 b c d c b
> >>a2. }
> >>%%%
> >>
> >>Unfortunately, I don't think this can be easily fixed with the current
> >>system.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Bertrand
> >
> >Gardner Read gives the "correct" beaming pattern for 3/4 to be 6
> >beamed quavers, so the implication is that any available quavers
> >are beamed. Gotta say that seems wrong to me, but can we wait
> >until a beaming guru comments before raising this as an issue?
> >
> >-- 
> >Phil Holmes
> >Bug Squad
> 
> Stay that - I've just found the correct bit of Gould (page 153),
> where she's clear it shouldn't look like this (and I've seen Carl's
> comment). I'll raise this as an issue.

-- 
  Dmytro O. Redchuk                        "Easy to use" is easy to say.
  Bug Squad                                             -- Jeff Garbers