Re: Misleading autobeaming in 3/4

[Phil Holmes]

"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:
> >
> > %%%
> > \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.

--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad