Re: split-subbeam direction

[Spider]

Lilypond gives this:

   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+  +--+--+--+
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|              |  |  |
|              |  |  |


I wanted this:

   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+  |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|           +--+--+--+
|              |  |  |
|              |  |  |


But this is supposedly correct:

     |  |  |  |
 |---+--+--+--+--+--+--+
 |---+--+--+  +--+--+--+   
 |               |  |  |  


I'm all confused now. But regardless, it would be nice if
we could get all these possibilites through the tweaking of
parameters. I understand it's not a top priority, but it
would be nice if they were worked in at some point or
another.

Thanks,

Spider




--- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > We recently talked with Paul Roberts,  a notation guru
> that explained
> > to us that it should really be
> > 
> >      |  |  |  |
> >  |----------------|--|--|
> >  |---|--|--|  |---|--|--|  
> >  |                |  |  |  
> > 
> > 
> > (the 1st stem determines the "direction" of the beam)
> 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com