Re: warning: no feasible beam position

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Stephen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this a bug? The last note of the first system is flipped up probably
> because of a negative beam length with the warning "weird stem size" after
> the warning in my subject heading. I don't see what is causing this. It 
> does
> not happen in 2.4, only 2.6. So perhaps this is a regression?

I'm not sure, it depends whether 2.4 also places the linebreak just at 
the beam. Can you isolate that beam in a snippet? This looks like an 
interesting bugreport. You'll need to pad said beam with some skips to 
force the linebreak at the same place.

I am rather astonished that Lily handles this piece of notation so well. 
How long is the entire piece? I'm wondering whether it's worth the 
effort to ask Universal whether we can use this snippet (I guess that 2 
systems is enough to get the point across) as a demo.

BTW, I've been thinking about a

  \override Slur #'details #'edge-attraction-factor = 21

syntax. Perhaps you'd be interested in sponsoring it?

--
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen