Re: Possible regression in 2.13 series? "no viable configuration" warning

[address@hidden]

That said, the following code still produces the same message:

\version "2.13.59"

<<
 \new Staff = "md" \relative c' {
   r4 r8 s s2
   r4 r8 s s2
   r4 e, r2 |
 }
 \new Staff = "mg" \relative c'' {
   b8 f' c' \change Staff = "md" <g, c f>~
   <g c f>2 \change Staff = "mg" |
  \once \override Beam #'collision-interfaces = #'(;beam-interface
                                                   ;clef-interface
                                                   ;inline-accidental-interface
                                                   ;key-signature-interface
                                                   ;note-head-interface
                                                   ;time-signature-interface
)
   bes8 fes' ces' \change Staff = "md" <g, c f>~
   <g c f>2 \change Staff = "mg" |
   R1
 }
>>

On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Valentin Villenave
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> The cross-staff beams look a bit odd (the first note has a really
>>> long stem).
>>> 
>>> I'm surprised that there's problems as far back as 2.13.7, since
>>> the main beaming work was quite recent.
>> 
>> Indeed. I suspect the vertical spacing (skyline and all) is at stake
>> here, since in 2.12 the staves are printed further apart (and the beam
>> slope is totally different).
> 
> The message about "viable" configurations comes from the beam code
> which now takes the flat symbol into account.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond