Re: shorthand for autoBeam control

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > Yes.  What I really would like to write is
> >
> >   c4 c c \times 2/3 { r8 c16[] } c8
> >
> > and I just demonstrated a case where my proposed notation would be
> > helpful.

> My point is that is it not helpful in this case because it produces
> a notation which is IMO harder to read than the two variations that
> I gave.  Maybe you can give an example where \noBeam makes something
> easier to read instead of harder.

First of all, I'm quite conservative and I really dislike such
beamlets.  Additionally, all music before, say, 1930, doesn't use
beamlets at all, so you need a means to produce flagged notes.


   Werner