Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:25:35 -0700, bug-lilypond-request wrote:
>> 
>> Comment #1 on issue 1289 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Autobeaming in cadenza (shoud
>> be switched off?)
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1289
>> 
>> Fixed with commit f691c163e11c055809ebb5c7cb56359c14e4b92d
>> 
>> autobeaming for the Timing context is disabled by \cadenzaOn and enabled by
>> \cadenzaOff
>> 
> 
> You sure you want to change the behavior?

Yes.  The current behavior was undocumented and unintended, and led to
spurious ouptut, as you so thoughtfully pointed out.
> 
> The issue had benign effect in four places in the documentation alone.

Benign but wrong. 

> 
> I don't think anybody has complained about the beams that appear.
> (I complained that some disappeared, but in the context of alpha testing, and
> I tried to take that back.)
> 

Probably nobody has.  But when I proposed a real correction, i.e. to make
autobeaming follow the beat from the existing time signature, I was told
that behavior was incorrect.  And looking at the resources on the web, I
agree that it's incorrect.  I don't think we should ever have LilyPond do
the "easy thing" when it's not correct.

If somebody wants autobeaming in a cadenza, they can turn it on.  And then
they can set it to do whatever they want it to do.


> Googling "cadenzaOn autobeamOff" shows that several users figured out how to
> turn them off for themselves.
> 
> If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off
> autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas?
> 

The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off
autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference.

I think this is the right thing to do.

Thanks,

Carl



> -Keith
>