[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:55:29 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0

Am 20.08.2015 um 07:29 schrieb David Kastrup:
Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:


I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there
is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen
with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear
in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it?

Yours, Simon

\version "2.19.23"

\relative c'{
   \time 2/4
   d8 e f g |
   \set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment 3/4)
You are setting the measurePosition to a value beyond any valid one.
What are you even trying to achieve here,
I’m not trying to achieve anything, I just played around with different values for measurePosition and when it showed this interference with beaming, I wondered if there was some unwanted behaviour in this, but as Trevor explained, it’s consistent that this happens, so the answer is: ignore it.
  and why are you not using
\partial instead (which makes sure to set measurePosition at a "safe"
time, after all position-related processing has finished)?

"Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario."
is misstating the situation.  This is not about being realistic or not,
this is about being complete nonsense.  I can't even imagine what you'd
expect LilyPond to be doing here.
Since even -1/4 gave correct results, I thought there might be some kind of modulo in effect so that 3/4 or any 1/4 + n/2 with n being any integer would be equivalent to 1/4 (with measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 1/2)).
Let’s close the issue.

Yours, Simon

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]