Re: Feature request

[David Kastrup]

Jean-Charles Malahieude <address@hidden> writes:

> Le 24/09/2012 22:18, Janek Warchoł disait :
>> On Monday, September 24, 2012, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> We get about 1 request per month of the kind in
>>> <URL:http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-09/msg00600.html>
>>> "I can't get the automated beams to look like the manual beams in
>>> measure 1".
>>>
>>> Can we just get a command
>>> \beaming { c8[ c] c r c[ c c c] }
>>> which converts its argument into overrides for beatStructure and
>>> beamExceptions?
>>
>> +1 in general, i'm not sure about the specifics except for the part
>> about subdivisions: if it would be possible to make things work in a
>> way that would allow [[ to specify a subdivison, i would like it.
>>
>
> Why not "mimic" the difference between phrasing slur and slur:
>
> \beaming 4/4 { c16\[[ c c c] c[ c c c]\] c8[ c] c[ c] }

It's not like one _couldn't_ use nested beams for specifying the
subdivisions.  It is just that it does not match normal usage.

Now what you are proposing is basically an abuse of ligatures.  That
would only make sense if ligatures were first brought in line with all
the other post-event phrasings (ligatures aren't a post-event right now
and stick out somewhat) and actually used for beam subdivision in the
main code.  But if I remember correctly, beam subdivision is a
multi-level problem, not just two-level.

-- 
David Kastrup