Re: Beam-patch - first try

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> HN>> Now I have the first version of the beaming patch.
> HN>> My idea is to split the beamed section at the middle of duration if this
> HN>> was possible.
> HN> 
> HN> I disagree with this. The split points are determined by the
> HN> meter. What if you have 9 16ths (triplet) in  3/8?
> 
> Then it will not be possible to split at the middle - and the old routine
> takes over. But ofcourse, if one has 8 16ths (triplet) in 3/8 then the
> routine would behave strangely. And perhaps also with 6 16ths (non-triplet)
> in 3/8.

I originally chose the minimum-denominator criterium, because it
matches nicely with the way binary meters are built up. I have my
reservations about "split in the middle", since this criterium does
not change when the beam is moved around in the measure. For any
non-trivial beaming that is correct, you can construct an incorrect
one by moving the beam right by an 8th or 16th. Could I ask you to
reconsider your algorithm?

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/