Re: Patch to autobeaming code.

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 8/19/08 7:52 AM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 8/17/08 10:02 AM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> You analysis is correct, but I think the solution should be that
>> rewriting 12/16 to 6/8 based on beatlength is the wrong thing to do,
>> and will confuse users - since their 12/16 settings will be ignored.
>> Before we start introducing new functionality, I think we should fix
>> this first.
>>
>
> What did you intend to have happen when beatLength is changed?  AFAICS,
> \time 12/16 sets measureLength to (ly:make-moment 12 16) and beatLength to
> (ly:make-moment 1 16).  When a user sets beatLength to (ly:make-moment 1 8) it
> says to me they want to have an 8 in the denominator of the time signature,
> even though they want the printed value to be 16.
>
> For me, that should be the only reason for using beatLength.  I don't think
> beatLength is the appropriate thing to use for changing beaming.  That's what
> beatGrouping is for.
>
> If it were up to me, I would not allow users to directly change beatLength.  I
> don't think that a disconnect between the \time setting and the beatLength
> setting should be allowed.  If users want to fake time signatures, they can --
> and the techniques to do this are shown in the manual.
>
> But, as long as we are allowing users to set beatLength to  1/8, when the
> measure length is 12/16, aren't we really saying that the measure should be
> 6/8 (i.e. 12 16th notes = 6 eighth notes, and the measure should be divided
> into beats by eighth notes)?
>
> What other interpretation is there for beatLength?
>
>>
>> I'm missing the reg tests so we can see what kind of impact this change has.
>
> Right now, there are no differences on beatLength changes.  The only
> difference is when using beatGrouping.
>
> I've done make web on my system with this, and I'm attaching the regression
> website.
>
> What else would you like to see?
>

Is there any word on approval of this patch?

Carl