Re: a list of manually fine-tuned beaming exceptions?

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/3/6 address@hidden <address@hidden>:
>
> On Mar 5, 2011, at 17:33, Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Thanks for information! Yes, this should be investigated.
>> However, i'm afraid that when i change some well-established
>> parameters, it may cause unwanted side-effects in other beams. And the
>> worst part is that i have no means to check this: it would require a
>> gigantic proof-sheet consisting of thousands of different beams to
>> check that some parameter combination works optimal.
>> That's why i suggested a temporary solution. It could also serve as a
>> reference beaming database later.
>
> Having recently OD'd on beam quanting, I am convinced that the right cocktails
> of penalties and demerits can hit all of the targets that would potentially 
> be on this list.
> There's nothing wrong with keeping a list like this in the form of a regtest
> with lots of beams (I think it's a great idea!), but I think the goal should 
> be to modify
> the quanting such that it attains the result you want while not breaking 
> other regtests.
> I know this is a tall order and means more work, but it seems like a better 
> use
> of contributor time and a more sustainable solution.

Ok. It's definately beyond me now, so i'll come back to it later.
Meanwhile i'll collect samples for the regtest - please send me
snippets if you find beams looking bad.
I'll speak again when i reach 200 examples :)

cheers,
Janek